Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through April 21, 2010	25		04/21 04:03pm
	Archive through December 27, 2013	25		12/27 01:59pm
	Archive through April 08, 2015	25		04/08 02:17pm
	Archive through March 02, 2016	25		03/02 10:00am
	Archive through March 03, 2020	25		03/04 07:41pm
	Archive through December 13, 2020	25		12/25 12:51pm
	Archive through March 03, 2022	25		03/05 01:00pm
	Archive through March 16, 2022	25		05/23 11:36am
	Archive through July 24, 2023	25		08/05 11:54am
	Archive through September 17, 2023	25		09/23 02:21pm
	Archive through October 08, 2024	25		08/02 08:59pm
	Archive through August 05, 2025	25		08/06 05:41pm
	Archive through August 17, 2025	25		08/24 07:15pm
	Archive through September 30, 2025	25		10/01 11:19am
	Archive through November 16, 2025	25		02/13 02:27am

Alan, thanks. Saturday of next week we may have another X-ray taken to see how the healing process is going.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, November 26, 2025 - 03:24 pm: Edit

There are two things I want to cover before I go deeper into this discussion. First is the beginning strength of the webs. I'm OK going by (S4.2) and (G10.83). With the base having special sensors and the Coalition being at war with the Tholians, there will be a +2 shift in the die roll modifiers for the (S4.25) chart. This will make it equally probable for any WS above WS-0. I'm also good with the Total line amounts being divided between the two strands of a buzzsaw. If the two strands are of equal strength, they would fall within the (G10.833) "2nd layer" limitations.

The second thing is the Command Ratings of the ships, and especially how they would affect this defense of the Tholian BATS. With your proposed ships and my minefield, this will not be a single one assault scenario. There will be multiple rounds of combat with the attacker backing away, regrouping, and attacking again. Why this is important is because there will possibly be ships stuck in a buzzsaw web without any other ships with the capacity to pull the stuck ship from the web. The stuck ship will not be able to withdraw with the fleet. The requirements for (D1.521) allow for the Tholians to be able to pull a severely crippled ship deeper into the web without the enemy being able to fire on that ship. The requirements of (D5.5) limit the ability of the crippled ship to self destruct. What this means is that the attacker may have one or more gutted crippled ships inside the buzzsaw. These ships count against the command rating of the command ship. 

Keeping the example simple, if the attacker has a DN with a CR of 10, the fleet can have 11 ships total. If two of these ships are gutted and drawn deeper into the web, they will still count against the CR of the command ship. There is no requirement for the Tholians to capture or destroy them immediately. If the next round has two more gutted and drawn inside the buzzsaw, that leaves only six slots of the CR-10 ship available to fill. The attacking fleet will be weaker for each ship that cannot withdraw, allowing the Tholians to concentrate their fire on the ships that return to do battle. I know this example is exaggerated, but it demonstrates the point I'm trying to make.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 12, 2026 - 04:34 am: Edit

John,

I wanted to address what I see as one of the advantages of a wedding cake over a buzz saw; in most cases, a wedding cake can be powered up to a viable level in fewer turns than a buzz saw can, when an enemy appears. In your previous post you referenced G10.83, but that's kind of an abstraction for scenario purposes. Instead, I would like to consider (for the moment) a situation (based on the statement under G10.8 that webs are kept at strength zero "... until a threat appears"), and how long it takes for a Tholian defense to then bring its defenses up to a viable level. The threat may be several "tactical turns" away when the Tholians detect it, or it may be nearly on top of the base already (hence the rules for scenario purposes, for WS-0 through WS-3).

Now, what do I mean when I talk about bringing defenses to a "viable level"? A typical attacking enemy (not Andromedan) can move through a web of strength 31 or less but is stopped by a strength 32-or-greater web. So a web defense of either type would only slightly slow down the attacker, who would experience only one or at most two turns of phaser-4 fire, and would encounter only a small fraction of the mines, before being able to attack the defending base directly. Note that against a "non-viable" buzz saw the attacker doesn't follow along the spirals; he charges directly at the base, crossing the buzz saw strands while delayed by only a few impulses. That's why he would only have to engage a small percentage of the mines.

Now, I maintain that for a buzz saw to be viable, both strands must be strengthened to at least 32. If only one strand is at or above strength 32 (call it the "A strand") and the other strand ("B strand") is weak, the attacker moves directly toward the base, just past the end of the A strand. He then moves through the B strand and onto an inner leg of the A strand at a point where he has a clear line-of-sight to the base, with neither strand blocking his fire. Typically he will be trapped on the strong A strand about 2 or 3 hexes from the base (depending on specific tactical choices), but with nothing blocking his direct fire. Seeking weapons would still be trapped in the A strand itself but a plasma empire could still fire the plasma torpedoes as bolts. The drones of the Klingon (or Kzinti or Feds - non-historically) would be almost useless but the attacker would still have plenty of phaser and disruptor/photon torpedo firepower available. So a buzz saw with one strong "A strand" and one weak "B strand" isn't really a viable defense. Both strands need to be strength 32.

Next consider a wedding cake. The wedding cake only needs the 30-hex outer ring to be strength 32 or higher. The 18-hex middle ring only needs to be strength 1. The strong outer ring stops the attackers from advancing and traps any seeking weapons they launch. The weak middle ring blocks direct fire weapons from engaging Tholians that have retreated behind it. The base itself takes care of the 6-hex inner ring. Naturally, during the battle the Tholians will be strengthening the middle ring as well. But the strong outer ring stops the initial attack from simply "blitzing" the base and gives the Tholians time to do that.

For the buzz saw to be viable (by this definition), the defenders must power it up with a net total (strength points added minus strength points lost each turn to degradation) of 1920 points of aggregate strength (two 30-hex strands, each strengthened to 32). By comparison, the wedding cake becomes viable with only 978 aggregate strength points (30 hexes at strength 32 plus 18 hexes ta strength 1). The amount of energy required for these strength points will vary with the year.

Of course, the base itself can help strengthen the buzz saw strands but can not help with the outer and middle rings of a wedding cake. Even so, the difference is so stark that I believe that unless the Tholians have made some poor deployment decisions, the wedding cake will almost always be "viable" in fewer turns than the buzz saw.

Finally, if the base has very short notice, the Tholians defending a wedding cake might ignore the outer ring entirely and concentrate all ships (and PFs if available) on reinforcing the middle ring. While a two-tier wedding cake is less strong than a three-tier, it only requires 576 aggregate points (18 hexes at strength 32) to stop the base from being "blitzed".

I will examine this assertion in more detail over the next few days. But the above is the "skeleton" for my belief that a wedding cake can usually be powered up to a "viable" level in less time that a buzz saw can.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, February 12, 2026 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Alan, I understand your argument, but this discussion wouldn't be fun unless I disagree to some extent. Fortunately, I do. 

I infer that you agree with me that the available totals IAW (G10.83) may be distributed by the player per the restrictions of (G10.833) without following the exact patterns from the WS-0 to WS-3 strengths listed in the chart. That's good.

It seems as if you think that a web's strength will be static during the time that an enemy is in that web. Now that I have pointed that out, you obviously no longer think that. Let's take your Strand A and Strand B example. Strand A is already at strength 32+. Ignoring all other defenses except the webs, the attacker will avoid Strand A and try to pass through Strand B to get deeper into the buzzsaw. Once this happens, there is a race going on. Can the Tholians reinforce the chosen strand above the enemy's chosen speed before the enemy can satisfy the requirements of (G10.511). If the web strand is at strength 25, and the trapped ships are expending energy for speed 31, the Tholians must raise the strand's strength to 32+ before 32 impulses have passed. During this time, the Tholians have every generator unit available to charge that strand. This makes WS-3 safe, WS-2 a race, and WS-1 more problematic. This changes the specifics for your definition of viability. The strength of the web strand is the minimum number of impulses that the Tholians have to increase the strength of a strand before the enemy can pass through it.

I've kept this deliberately simple by not going into the myriad of non-web counters the Tholians can use to pooch the enemy's ability to move at max speed to exit the web.

Overall, I don't see a wedding cake as being significantly superior to a buzzsaw for these purposes, and in most cases I don't see it as being superior at all. The primary example of wedding cake superiority I see is at WS -1, and it isn't all that superior. At WS-1, you can have the outer ring powered up to strength 25 plus whatever you can add before the enemy takes the plunge. Maybe that is strength 31, maybe not. It may, however, put your forces under the firepower of the enemy depending on how long you stay adjacent to the outer web ring to power it. It also requires your forces to allocate power to shields, and movement to get near the web and escape. These are two power expenditures a buzzsaw defense can delay, and each unit with shields can raise then on battery power.  

The best you can have the middle ring at with a strength 25 outer ring is strength 11 with some leftover. This does put some danger onto the enemy's shoulders as the possibility of a blind spot being made exists, so there's a question mark here.
Overall, in our mini-campaign situation, the wedding cake isn't really all that superior to a buzzsaw. A lot comes down to the initial distribution of web energy and the willingness of the enemy to get stuck and/or split his forces. At the end of a first round of combat, assuming the base survives intact, a buzzsaw will be short some mines with all other forces intact and both strands at maximum for round 2. Also, there is the possibility that some of the attacking units may not be able to extricate themselves from the web affecting the number of fresh attacking units that can participate in round 2. A wedding cake defense may have an undetermined amount of mobile units destroyed which will affect the rest of the campaign.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, February 13, 2026 - 02:27 am: Edit

Several comments...

I assure you I do not think, and never have thought, the web strength would be static. I'm not sure why you would make that assumption. If I, as the attacker, am approaching a buzz saw that is at less-than-full strength; of course I will determine whether the defenders can bring it up to at least strength 32 in time to trap me if I try to "blitz" the web. If they can, I wouldn't use that tactic in the first place. I believe any attacker would do the same. I thought that was obvious enough that I didn't need to mention it.

Regarding (G10.833), I think the key point is actually

---

Quote:

In the event that the players decide to set up other web arrangements than a wedding cake, these strength point totals dictate the number of web hexes and web points which are available for purchase.

---

---

Quote:

The primary example of wedding cake superiority I see is at WS -1, and it isn't all that superior.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, February 13, 2026 - 10:27 am: Edit

OK, Weapon Status-2:

Again, as I see it, the critical number here is 1500, from the "Total" line of the chart. This is more than enough for the outermost ring of the wedding cake to start as strength 35 (1050 strength points required) and leaves 450 strength points divided between the middle and inner rings. The wedding cake is blitz-proof from the start of the scenario.

But for a buzz saw, each strand will only be at strength 25 (1500 points / 60 hexes) and for a modest Tholian defense force (or a scenario set prior to Y175), the base might still get blitzed. Of course, the attackers will still take considerable damage doing so. But they can't blitz the wedding cake at all and if they assault it, will have to commit to a full "onion peeling". This would result in far higher losses for the attacker. In fact, they probably (depending on exact forces) couldn't take the base at all.

So I think the wedding cake wins the WS-2 case as well. More later...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, February 14, 2026 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Alan, at WS-2, the wedding cake will be an onion peel encouraging an initial scouting approach. It will also require a powerful fleet and patience.

I think you underestimate the buzzsaw or its application. The buzzsaw will have 2 turns to bolster the strands before any attacker that enters a strand can exit it. That's 2 turns worth of reinforcement that's available. In Y175+, for both strands to go from 25 to 32 in 2 turns requires 105 energy points for each strand plus 30 points. If the Tholian forces can't provide 135 energy points per turn, a buzzsaw is contra-indicated.

I also think you are too focused on the idea of the "viable web" as a function of a specific number. 32 is the guaranteed number, not the necessary one. The web needs only be stronger than the max speed of the ships that are stuck in it. A damaged, not crippled, ship with a current top speed of 28 will be trapped in a strength 29 web, and unless that ship can fire on something, it can be ignored for the time being. The prudent attacker will be encouraged to split his forces twice: he might send ships into each strand to divide reinforcement energy, and might divide his forces between being in the web and not. The Tholians will concentrate fire on what ships might reach the core. If those ships cannot complete the job, there will be consequences, and if he committed all of his ships into the web, that's the game.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 14, 2026 - 09:24 pm: Edit

John; note that I wrote

---

Quote:

... and for a modest Tholian defense force (or a scenario set prior to Y175), the base might still get blitzed.

---

---

Quote:

If the Tholian forces can't provide 135 energy points per turn, a buzzsaw is contra-indicated.

---

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, February 15, 2026 - 05:57 pm: Edit

I know you get a bit miffed when I chime in.

1. Most of the mines are in-between the arms of a buzz-saw? If so that makes it easier to blitz the base?

2. The mines are set around the wedding cake. Outside of the web? To blitz the wedding cake, you would have to run thru the mines?

3. Mines as I use them are set up around the base to slow down the attacker. Giving the base time to power up weapons. WW and other shuttle use.

4. A force that just runs thru a minefield. I think could lose a few ships.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 15, 2026 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Gregory;

Not miffed at all. Though I addressed these recent posts specifically to John Christiansen, I'm always happy to see someone else get involved in the discussion.

I'll try to give a more detailed response to your questions later. But for now I will say that I believe attacking a fully prepared Tholian defense is one of the most dangerous and costly things any non-Andromedan attacker can do. Even if the base falls, attacker casualties are going to be very high. But if the attacker hits the base at a low Weapon Status, he might be able to get through the webs before the Tholians can power them up enough to stop the attacker. But this requires charging through the minefield at high speed. Yes, the attacker will take major damage from mines. My contention is that you don't attack a well-defended, webbed base at all unless it is strategically important enough to justify suffering those losses. But if the base is that important and you are lucky enough to find it at low WS, giving it time to fully power up will ultimately lose you more ships than just blitzing through the minefield. If the base is defended with a buzz saw and does have time to fully power up, you (with the possible exception of attackers with "special technology" - Seltorians or Andromedans) will have to move down the spiral and engage far more mines than if you just blitzed straight in toward the base. And against a wedding cake, you will endure turn-after-turn-after-turn of phaser-IV fire, rather than the one or two turns you would experience in a blitz.

As I said, more later. But please don't feel at all reluctant to "chime in" to the conversation.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, February 15, 2026 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Alan, the cruiser is a CA, not a CPA.

Although asteroids cannot be moved during a scenario, they can be moved, and if they're already at the base it shouldn't take long to reposition them if desired. The presence of a web is detectable at 50 hexes for a ship and 75 for a scout, (D17.3), and the strength at 20 hexes and 30 hexes. That being said, your point about when the base is attacked is moot. If the forces cannot support a buzzsaw, don't have one. You over stretch yourself when you claim that a buzzsaw is "always" contraindicated.

I'm short on time, and will deal with WS-1 later.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, February 15, 2026 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Gregory, one thing to understand is that Alan and I agree that an adequately defended base cannot be taken in a single scenario. There will likely be follow up rounds of combat so soon after the previous one that a dissipated web cannot be re-spun, or a very weak web reinforced to adequate levels.

I'm working on an idea for a mini-campaign in which a starbase is defended and attacked. There will be options for other bases to substitute for the starbase. What is slowing me down is some Tholian specific rules, and life in general.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 15, 2026 - 11:16 pm: Edit

You're right about the cruiser not being a CPA. My mistake. CPA becomes available in Y179 and the scenario is in Y178. I listed it as a CPA without bothering to go back and look at the forces I had originally posted.

I don't understand the relevance of your D17.3 citation. The attacking forces will be aware of the strength of the web (and whether a blitz attack is viable) long before they have to commit to entering the web. At that point, the attacker either decides to blitz, commits to a more conventional assault, or withdraws. Whether the attacker knows the web strength at 30 hexes, or 300, the decision process is the same.

You say:

---

Quote:

That being said, your point about when the base is attacked is moot. If the forces cannot support a buzzsaw, don't have one.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, February 15, 2026 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean by "competent Tholian operational and strategic level planning." I'm referring here to decisions such as what the Tholians decide to build (including how many ships versus how many bases), and how the Tholians deploy those ships. I think the Tholians get into trouble if they build too many bases relative to the number of ships they have. Ultimately, the mobile forces are key to holding the Holdfast. The Tholians need enough bases to adequately support those ships. But in general their building program should emphasize strengthening their mobile forces while ensuring sufficient (but not too many) supporting bases.

A lot of details need to be covered (later). But that's the kind of thing I am basically referring to as "operational and strategic level planning", and the Tholians need to get that right.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 16, 2026 - 09:15 am: Edit

I think I should expand on my 2:27 AM statement from Friday, 13 Feb, that it's "trivially easy" for the Tholians to bring a strength 25 outer ring to "blitz-proof" strength (i.e. strength 32) and still get the defenders back behind the middle ring; assuming a "typical" starting position for the attacker. (I based the "typical" starting position on scenario (SH6.0) ASSAULT ON THE HOLDFAST. I stand by that statement but haven't provided any numbers to support it. So here are some numbers.

(First, note that the web will deteriorate to strength 31 at the end of the turn. But since the earliest the Klingons would be able to enter the web is about halfway through the first turn, they will be unable to leave until approximately half way through turn 2, giving the Tholians plenty of time early in turn 2 to reinforce the outer ring back up to 32, or more.)

How much energy do the Tholian ships actually have available? They need to supply 105 energy to the outer ring to get it to strength 32, while paying life support and generating enough movement points that they will get back behind the middle ring safely. Note that active fire control is not required simply for reinforcing web, and shields will not be needed so long as the Tholians get back behind the middle ring before any Klingon has line of sight.

The Tholians in our hypothetical scenario have 4xPCs, each generating 14 power + 2 reserve. Of that 16 points per PC, each spends ¹/₂ point for life support, leaving 15¹/₂ per PC to divide between web reinforcement and movement. That's 62 energy on turn 1 for the 4 PCs. The AWT has 34 + 1 (generated + reserve) energy and also only spends ¹/₂ point for life support, leaving 34¹/₂ to divide between web and movement. Finally, the CA has 31 + 3 energy with a life support cost of 1. It will have 33 power for web and movement. That's a total of 129¹/₂ energy. Subtracting the 105 for web reinforcement, that still leaves 24¹/₂ energy for movement, divided between 6 ships with a total movement cost between them of 2¹/₆. Not only will all 6 ships get back safely after bringing the outer ring to strength 32, they will have enough energy left over to put some energy into the phaser capacitors.

In a later post, I will examine the energy allocations of the individual ships in more detail.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, February 16, 2026 - 11:55 am: Edit

Alan, that's a lot to cover with the time I have now. I'm going to focus on one point only at this time. A wedding cake defense requires more ships than a buzzsaw defense does. If the strategic situation changes such that more ships are needed way over there, a BATS with fewer ships can have a full buzzsaw. A SB can power a buzzsaw without ships. A SB without ships but with a wedding cake is surrounded by a single ring, a ring that will help the ships survive the SB's explosions.

Both web patterns have their purposes. You just can't see when the buzzsaw is preferable. It is your lack of understanding that is haunting you. I have mentioned times in which the buzzsaw is preferable. You haven't grasped the concepts, strategic or tactical.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, February 16, 2026 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Alan, why are you obsessed with the idea of a "viable" web if you likely won't be able to maintain it at that level?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, February 20, 2026 - 02:35 pm: Edit

John, sorry about the delay getting back to you.

I think part of the problem is that we disagree about what supporting units are "likely" to be present when a webbed base is attacked. I referred to this in previous posts over the last week or so, but didn't (and can't now) give an explicit definition for a reasonable defense. But let me say that I can easily see the Tholians having to deploy some of their intended base defenders somewhere else, and the base thus being hit while understrength. What I can't really see is a situation in which the base has no defending ships supporting it. Even a weakly held base should at least be able to power up a "two-tier" wedding cake, which is still substantially stronger than base with only the innermost ring powered.

And... a starbase without supporting ships (per your 11:55 AM post from 16 February)? I just don't see that happening. Starbases are just too rare and valuable. After PFs are deployed, the situation gets even better. A starbase normally has two flotillas of PFs, and two of six PFs in each flotilla have a "W" mod. Even with no "real" warships at all (very unlikely), that still gives the starbase (which, please note, has 18 phaser-IVs because I most certainly did not give it a webcaster refit) a tremendous capability to conduct a wedding cake defense.

You say you "... have mentioned times in which the buzzsaw is preferable." The problem is, I don't think those cases are likely to occur if I am in charge of the Tholians. They would come about as the result of decisions I would never make.

And you say "A wedding cake defense requires more ships than a buzzsaw defense does." I've said this before but I think it bears repeating; at the strategic level, a Tholian empire that bases its defenses on wedding cakes will have more warships in total, or the same number but better ships, than one that bases its defense on buzz saws. The buzz saw-based defense will require the Tholians to build a lot more mine fields, and mines, though small, are expensive in aggregate, due to the electronics and power systems (for captor mines); as well as require the Tholians to build more minelayers to maintain those fields. And in general, a base defended by a buzz saw, but with no ships in support, will take a long time to power up the webs when a threat is detected, making it vulnerable to a blitz as described above. (Of course, once PFs are deployed, that will greatly aid bases defended by either type of web.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, February 21, 2026 - 06:31 am: Edit

I'm also wary of the argument that buzz saws need fewer ships in general. The example you cited was a starbase, but those are rare and very expensive. The BATS should be considered the "default" base, in my opinion.

Okay, the basic BATS generates 33 points of power and the only energy it has to allocate is 1¹/₂ points for life support. So with life support plus maintaining the web, that's 31¹/₂ required from a base that generates 33: technically... possible. But that base will take a very long time to power the web to full strength once an attack is detected. It is highly vulnerable to a blitz, in the sense previously described.

So let's "buff" the base with a PAM (available Y165) or better still, HPM (available Y178). And let's give the base a fighter squadron (but no ships) because Tholian fighter modules do have a couple of APR. (Note that 6 heavy fighters would give better firepower than 12 standard-sized fighters but the heavy fighters modules don't have additional APR.) The base now generates 33+15+2+2=52 power. Not bad at all.

But... it's still going to be somewhat slow to bring the web up to strength when the attach is detected; just not as slow as a base with no modules at all. And consider energy expenditure even if the webs are full strength.

Life support: 1¹/₂
Fire control (assuming it wants to use its phaser-IVs): 1
Web: 30
8xphaser-IVs: 16
6 points of ECCM: (6)

That adds up to 54¹/₂ power, for a base that generates 52. It's coming up a bit short, though it can maintain the posture for a long time by allowing the web to slowly decay and/or getting less than maximum benefit from its big phaser-IVs.

But wait, those attacking Klingons will generally be protected by more than 6 ECM (a scout, ECM drones), so the phasers will be less accurate. Fortunately the special base EW rules allow the BATS to fire its phaser-IVs without blinding special sensors, and also lend itself ECCM. So we'll add in one point to power a special sensor and 6 points for that sensor to lend the base itself 6 additional ECCM, for 12 ECCM total. So that BATS (with HPM and two fighter modules) is falling still further behind if it wants to fully maintain the web and also get maximum effectiveness from its phaser-IVs; 61¹/₂ required power, from a base that generates 52.

And we still haven't taken into account the fact that the base might want to further improve its ECCM (for additional power...) by using a drogue.

More later.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, February 23, 2026 - 09:30 am: Edit

OK, it's later...

I'm still trying to get a handle on what you think a Tholian base defense ought to consist of. I already stated I don't really buy a scenario where the Tholians leave their SB with no ships, and don't think a BATS with no ships is really viable (unless in the PF era) because the power availability isn't enough for a sufficient defense unless the base has an extreme minefield. And that minefield gets very expensive, especially if you try to defend all the Tholian bases that way.

So, what do you think a typical late-war BATS defense would look like? Because I still don't know. The previous defense we put together jointly is not typical, in my opinion. It's more an augmented defense for a high priority station. Not every base is likely to have an HPM (in my opinion) and not every base is likely to have a cruiser in direct support. Most importantly, I wouldn't spend that much on the minefield (except, again, for a few high priority special cases) if I were in charge of overall Tholian defense planning.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, February 25, 2026 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Alan, it's my turn for a delayed answer. You're not being forgotten or neglected.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, February 26, 2026 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Could the viewers get an overview as to when/where this is going to take place?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 26, 2026 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Stewart,

I'm afraid John will have to do that. I'm still unsure of his overall plan.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Friday, February 27, 2026 - 12:05 am: Edit

Pardon, wrong thread.