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

It is true that the Hive and Nest Ships are quite slow at the tactical and operational levels seen over in Federation and Empire: according to (546.32), each can only move one hex per turn via operational movement, and only six hexes per turn via strategic movement (counting as three ships at once in so doing).

Yet, at the tactical level seen in SFB, the maximum speed either hull type can go is Speed 21 - which, in fairness, is not terribly bad, not least given the amount of discretionary power a Battlewagon or Assaultwagon has on offer.

So while the onus for the Tholians would be either to try and intercept a BW or AW in open space, or perhaps while still parked over the Seltorian host planet, once the ship is within striking distance of a Tholian base (or domed colony world), it wouldn't take that long for the hull to get close enough to the outermost layer of web defences to start causing trouble.

And even if the Tholians were able to intercept a BW or AW at a distance from the nearest Tholian base: there is only so much a long-range bombardment can do, if the Seltorians focus that same discretionary power towards shield reinforcement.

Consider: even if moving at Speed 21, an undamaged Assaultwagon still has (if I've counted it correctly) thirty-four points of discretionary generated power per turn: five impulse boxes plus thirty-nine APRs, minus ten points for housekeeping". And it has twelve points of battery power in addition to this. Any or all of which can be used to reinforce and/or repair any shields damaged by long-range weapons fire, if the Tholians refrain from getting up close and personal. And that's before one considers the use of partial-X refits on such a hull...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, September 22, 2023 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Gary Carney:
You might consider a different identification of the two ships, as reading your post, I was momentarily confused to wonder what a Tholian Black Widow carrier had to do with what you were saying. I figured it out, but that two letter identification (BW) is already taken in SFB.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 22, 2023 - 03:35 pm: Edit

SPP,

In fairness, there are other designations which vary in usage from one empire to the next.

For example, the Federation, Gorns, and Baduvai each have a Strike Cruiser, yet each class of ship is quite distinct from the other two in terms of their respective modes of operation.

Indeed, the Vari Battlewagon (also designated as "BW") is quite different from its Seltorian namesake...

That said, if an alternative set of designations was required for this Battlewagon (and/or for the Assaultwagon) as and when a would-be "Seltorian Master Starship Book" is up for consideration, how about:

"HSB" (for a Battlewagon with no PFs);
"HSBP" (for a Battlewagon with PFs);
"NSB" (for an Assaultwagon with no PFs);
and "NSBP" (for an Assaultwagon with PFs)?

I should note that there are distinct "with PF" listings over in the Seltorian SIT for Federation and Empire for the Hive Ship, Nest Ship, Battlewagon, and Assaultwagon - though I don't recall if there are separate counters on the Minor Empires countersheet for such variants.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 22, 2023 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Gary,

Let's look at some numbers.

First of all, how plausible is it that the Tholians (always assuming they can afford to mass multiple capital ships into a single force) would have a lot of time to work on that approaching Battlewagon-led fleet before the latter closes on its target base? Pretty plausible, in my opinion. Space is... really... big. How far is it, in SFB hexes, from the Earth to the Moon? About 40 hexes, as a rough approximation. And that's just the Moon. How far is it from the Earth to the Sun? More than 15,000 hexes. And the Earth is an "inner" planet, comparatively "close" to the Sun. At maximum tactical speeds, it would take standard SFB warships (or X-ships) about 500 SFB turns just to travel from the Earth to the Sun. For a Battlewagon? About 750 SFB turns.

There are a lot of variables, of course. How far from the target base does the Seltorian fleet drop from "strategic" speeds"? How far away are the Selts when the Tholians detect them? How close is the intercepting fleet (it may not be at the target base since it may need to be positioned to cover several possible targets) and how soon can it get underway once the Seltorians are detected? So there's no guarantee the intercept fleet will be able to engage the Selts hundreds, or even thousands, of SFB turns away from the base. But I would argue that it is eminently plausible that it could happen, and that therefor the Tholians should attempt to develop the capability.

You discussed how much shield reinforcement an Assaultwagon could have, and a Battlewagon could have even more. But let's look at the situation a little more closely. I'm assuming the Battlewagon is escorted by a defending fleet, which may include X-ships. I'm also assuming, for sake of discussion, that the Selts are well-enough established in this galaxy that they can also produce DNs or BCHs. The first task of the Tholians, in my opinion, is to reduce the supporting fleet. Yes, the Battlewagon has very strong shields and lots of reinforcement. None of that helps the other ships in the Selt fleet. So, initially, the Tholians ignore the Battlewagon. They use their superior speed and maneuverability to keep the fight at 30 hexes, a range at which they will inflict more damage on the Seltorians than they will suffer, due to superior long range firepower and (usually) superior shields (except for the Battlewagon itself). Once they have significantly reduced the Seltorian fleet they can close on the Battlewagon and engage at a range where they can overcome its shields.

Finally, let's look at firepower at range-30. Do the Tholians really have the edge I have claimed? Let's compare some capital ships on each side. (Initially I am going to ignore EW effects and firing arcs, for sake of simplicity.)

Seltorian
CAX: 12 phaser-1s and 4 PCs (shield crackers don't matter at this range) - 6²/₃ damage per turn
DN: 12 phaser-1s and 6 PCs - 8 damage per turn
Battlewagon: 16 phaser-1s and 4 PCs - Again, 8 damage per turn

Finally, one of the Communiques published a Seltorian "Light Battleship". I don't think this ship is officially part of the SFU yet (though I might be mistaken), but rather is still a "playtest" version. But still...

Light Battleship: 15 phaser-1s and 7 PCs - 9²/₃ damage per turn

This gives an idea of the sort of damage the most powerful ships available to the Seltorians are capable of inflicting at 30 hexes. How about the Tholians?

Tholians
NCX: 11 phaser-1s, 4 disruptors, 2 X-tech webcasters - 13 damage per turn
NHX (NCX with collar): 14 phaser-1s, 4 disruptors, 2 X-tech webcasters - 14 damage per turn
CAX: 12 phaser-1s, 5 disruptors - 9 damage per turn
CCX: 12 phaser-1s, 4 disruptors, 1 X-tech webcaster - 10²/₃ damage per turn
NDN: 9 phaser-1s, 4 disruptors, 3 webcasters - 13 damage per turn

And finally, when you really want to impress someone at long range...

DHW: 11 phaser-1s, 8 disruptors, 2 webcasters - 15²/₃ damage per turn

Note that unlike the Seltorians, the Tholian ships are all "real" and were deployed in this galaxy. And the Tholians have similar advantages in their standard cruisers. A "bog-standard" Seltorian CA will score 5¹/₃ points per turn at 30 hexes. An Archeo-Tholian CA will score 6 per turn. A Neo-Tholian NCA is one of the Tholian ships that does not have shielding as good as (or better than) it's Seltorian counterpart. But it does have the firepower to inflict 10¹/₃ points per turn at 30 hexes; i.e. more than a Seltorian DN or CAX!

The above is simplified in a number of ways (ignoring EW and weapons arcs, ignoring possible counter-tactics and Tholian counters to the counters, etc). But I think it establishes that the Tholians have the technological capabilities to deploy a fleet that could intercept a Battlewagon-led fleet in open space, and defeat it. The Seltorians just aren't that effective at 30 hexes; and the Battlewagon makes it tough for them to close on the Tholians without dividing their forces. The issue comes back to whether that would be feasible given Tholian economic and resource constraints.

That, anyway, is how I see it. The ball's back in your court.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, September 23, 2023 - 02:21 pm: Edit

I discussed this issue in my ancient story of the Klingon Commodore aboard the IKV Bunny Slayer.

IIRC the ISC Commodore was in the "Dudly Do Right."

Now sadly lost in a BBS purge.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, September 23, 2023 - 07:08 pm: Edit

It might be a while before I can post a more detailed response.

But in the meantime:

----

The Seltorian light battleship has yet to be printed as an SSD for SFB. However, it has already been accounted for in the Seltorian rules (and SIT line entries) over in F&E Minor Empires.

Any of the "three-boom" hulls (such as the light dreadnought and the new light cruiser) require host empire support to be brought into being. As in, the host must provide the spare computing power required to run the necessary "dynamic balance studies" needed to establish a stable warp field around these hulls.

Also, it is possible for the Seltorians to build a medium shipyard under (546.51), but only with the permission of a host empire (if there is one). Once such a yard is competed, the Seltorians can then construct L-hulls and L-booms - which, if combined with the "dynamic balance studies" support noted above, would then allow the Seltorians to field light battleships.

Historically, even had the Klingons granted permission to build a medium yard (which they were understandably wary of doing), and had provided the "dynamic balance studies" needed to field the Seltorian BBL, the earliest the medium yard could have been finished would have been by the end of Y186. Which, of course, means that the ISC intervention earlier that year was a timely one, in that they (knowingly or otherwise) pre-empted such a development...

In any case, I suppose the Seltorian BBL would be considered in historical SFB to be an "unbuilt variant" - in the Alpha Octant, at least.

However, one might wonder if the Torch was able to broadcast the specifications of the BBL, DNL, and NCL back to M81. Had they done so, the "at-home" Seltorian Suzerainty would have the shipyard capacity to field these "three-boom" hulls in their major fleet yards - plus the opportunity to relay these blueprints on to other Tribunal expeditions outbound from the home galaxy.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, October 06, 2023 - 02:34 pm: Edit

One other issue the Battlewagon or Assaultwagon might have in this instance is the use of its special sensors against Tholian X1-ships.

Since partial-X units cannot be given advanced fire control, this would prevent them from using EW jamming against enemy X1-ships - but then, since that function has a range of 15 hexes only, it would not be a factor when facing the range-30 volleys discussed above.

So, it would be a case of either using the on-board sensor suite to protect itself, and/or to lend EW points to nearby Seltorian X1-ships.

Actually, has it been clarified anywhere as to whether or not Hive or Nest Ships (to include their respective siege variants) count as "ships" or as "bases", so far as (G24.283) is concerned?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, October 06, 2023 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Gary;

While Hive Ships and Nest Ships have some of the capabilities of a base, those are mostly strategic / logictical. As far as tactical capabilites go, including (G24.283), unless you can find something that positively states they do have this capability, I think you have to assume they do not.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 03, 2024 - 06:58 am: Edit

Ships the Tholians didn't build, but should have:

In Module R4T, the Tholians finally got some (non-X) fast warships. Two of these (based on the Archeo-Tholian CA and DD) are "real". But they also got some "conjectural" fast cruisers and light dreadnoughts; mostly based on Neo-Tholian ships but also including the Archeo-Tholian CW war cruiser and DH heavy dreadnought. The DH-based DL has a webcaster refit, making it the DLW.

I believe the Tholians should have actually built at least one DLW, maybe more. Unlike the DHW, the DLW is strategically fast enough to keep up with the Tholian X-squadrons. And it is powerful enough that even in an X-ship battle it is hardly a sitting duck. And it has two webcasters...

Historically (within the time period covered) the Tholians only had two "fast" ships capable of mounting two webcasters, the two NCXs (based on the NCA). The 312th arrived with a total of four NCAs,of which (per (R7.205) NEO-THOLIAN ADVANCED HEAVY CRUISER (NCX))

---

Quote:

... three of which survived the General War. However, one of these was so badly damaged that conversion to X technology was deemed impossible.

---

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, October 03, 2024 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:
We all know how much you want to take the Web casters off the star bases and redeploy them on mobile units, but how may web casters can the Tholians have? Yes, a virtually unlimited number in the Home Galaxy, not so much in the Milky Way.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, October 03, 2024 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Not that it's that important, but IMO, having a couple of the few available Web Casters mounted on a fast response ship with formidable personal firepower (i.e.: the DNL) seems like a not-too-unreasonable idea.

My 0.02 Quatloos worth.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 03, 2024 - 07:13 pm: Edit

SPP,

I certainly agree that in the Milky Way, the total number of web casters the Tholians can field absolutely needs to be restricted. And I don't think anything I have ever proposed^* has called for an increase in the total number of Tholian web casters. The DHW already exists as a "real" ship in the SFU and the DLW already exists as a "conjectural" one. If one or two of the DHWs had been built as DLWs instead, it would not increase the total number of web casters at all. It would merely have fielded them in (what I believe to be) a more efficient way.


^*And in fact, the current discussion isn't actually a proposal for anything. It's more like a philosophical consideration of Tholian choices. Should they have built fewer of ship "a" (already existing within the SFU) and built a few of ship "B" (already conjectural within the SFU) instead.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, October 03, 2024 - 09:18 pm: Edit

OK, NDL and NCF:

For both the Neo-Tholian Light Dreadnought and the Neo-Tholian Fast Heavy Cruiser, we are told that the Tholians considered the conversion

---

Quote:

... but found that they lacked the expertise in ship construction to undertake such a task...

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 12:16 am: Edit

NCF:

As mentioned previously, three of the four NCAs that arrived with the 312th survived into the post-General War period but only two were converted to NCXs, the third having been too badly damaged. That third NCA was not scrapped, however. After being repaired, it was provided with a collar and continued in service as an NCH, the Neo-Tholian Heavy Command Cruiser.

I believe the Tholians would have been better off converting the ship to an NCF, to provide two more web casters on a fast enough platform to keep up with X-squadrons. While not so powerful as the DWL, the NCF is an excellent ship of its type and, in my opinion, more useful to the Holdfast (even with the increased logistical burden caused by the special engines and fuel) than the NCH is.

But that raises a question. Could the Tholians have converted that third, severely damaged, NCA to an NCF? In my post from October 03, 2024 - 06:58 AM, which started this specific discussion, I explained why I believe it is probable that the Tholians would have developed the expertise to convert the NDN and NCA to the NDL and NCF, given that they were able to convert several Neo-Tholian ships to X-ships. But there is still the issue of that damage which prevented the third surviving NCA from being converted to an NCX but allowed it to continue in service as an NCH. How would the damage have affected an attempt to convert the ship to an NCF?

ADB, so far as I am aware, as never been specific about the nature of the damage. But I think we can surmise that it was severe damage to the rear hull. By the time the Tholians begin converting NCAs to NCXs, they can build new Command Modules (but not Neo-Tholian rear hulls) in the Holdfast itself. Had the third NCA's rear hull been intact but with a completely trashed CoM, the Tholians could simply have built a replacement CoM from scratch and then converted the ship to a third NCX. And while we don't know the specific nature of the rear hull damage, it is certainly plausible that it included very extensive damage to the main warp engines. Perhaps the Tholians, in assessing Intensity's damage, concluded that they could safely restore the engines to their "rated power" but that it would be too risky to try to take them beyond that. But that would also have precluded converting Intensity to the NCF configuration.

In summation, I regard the NCF as an excellent "fast cruiser" which would be a very useful ship to the Holdfast. But of course, another NCX would have been even more useful. So really, the existence of an NCF requires an NCA which cannot be converted to an NCX for some reason, but is in good enough shape to survive conversion to a NCF. And that needle may have been too diffcult to thead.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 12:50 am: Edit

Don't know if this is a dumb idea, but what about taking the CAF (R7.128, module R4T) and either replace its disruptors with Web Casters, remove the disruptors (or exchange them for Ph-1s, same firing arc) and mount a single Web Caster in a center position (like the Web Caster on the CCW), or just add the Web Caster to the existing ship?

(Personally, I like the idea of the single Web Caster and replacing the disruptors with Ph-1s for balance, but that's probably me being my usual screwball... )

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 02:01 am: Edit

Jeff, I had intended this discussion to be about ships for which ADB-sanctioned SSDs existed, rather than proposals for new ships. But to consider your points...

I don't believe the CAF could support web casters in the disruptor positions. No CA-based ship, not even the CCX, has more than a single web caster in the center mount position.

Would simply adding a a web caster to the CAF, analogous to the CC/CCW and CA/CAW conversions, be a good use for a web caster? Potentially, yes. I had kind of assumed that since the CAF SSD does not show such a refit, it is impossible for some reason. In fact, I had a vague memory of that being explicitly stated somewhere. But I can't find it now. Perhaps I am misremembering or perhaps that statement was made somewhere, but i didn't find it in my (brief) search.

Assuming a "CAFW" were possible, I would regard that as a less useful role for one of the very limited number of webcasters than a dreadnought or X-cruiser, but a more useful role for the webcaster than a CAW. I'm not sure whether a "CAFW" would be more or less useful to the Holdfast than a CCW, or an NDX (advanced technology Neo-Tholian destroyer). I have to think about that some more.

And I still have this nagging... suspicion... that ADB never intended for that to be a possible conversion.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 03:08 am: Edit

Addendum to the previous post:

Although I haven't found anything explicitly forbidding a web caster refit for the CAF, (R7.128) THOLIAN FAST HEAVY CRUISER (CAF) does include this statement

---

Quote:

Refits: DERFACS was installed in Y168 at no change in BPV. The snare refit was available in Y183 and standard after Y185.

---

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 03:18 am: Edit

"Tis better to have proposed and been rejected than to never have proposed at all."

Besides, it's something to discuss while throwing down a couple of cold ones (except I don't think the Tholians have any equivalent to "Cold Ones" ); something that, IMO, is worthwhile on its own.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 03:49 am: Edit

---

Quote:

"Tis better to have proposed and been rejected than to never have proposed at all."

---

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Duly noted, I type with a sheepish grin...

HOWEVER...

(uh-oh)

There's a tactic I've toyed with a bit with the Tholian Destroyer (a favorite ship of mine) that I'd like to run by you; stacking them.

Just due to the threat of transporter bombs (and NSM; both of which are favorite WEAPONS of mine), most every SFB player who's enjoyed it since the Commander's Edition has a dang near phobia about stacking ships; having two or more flying in the same hex/same speed/same facing/same direction. There's also the collateral from one of the ships blowing up.

Both of these, while not unreasonable, shouldn't discourage folks from stacking as much as they do; explosion strengths are WAY down in the Captain's Edition and mines/T-bombs are much rarer too.

With the Tholian DD, two of them stacked together are VERY much equivalent to the capabilities of a battlecruiser, perhaps even a heavy battlecruiser in terms of their offensive firepower.

Naturally, they do have some lack in their defensive firepower, but even there, there's an advantage; the two of them can combine their labs to get a perfect reading on whatever seeking weapons might be chasing after them, particularly which ship is their actual target.

Imagine this; the two are being chased by a Plasma-S torpedo. It can only be targeted on one of them. Once they know which one is the target for sure, the other can sideslip so its forward phaser battery is unmasked and it can give the full four Ph-1 salvo on the Plasma-S at one hex; something that will render it unable to penetrate the rear shield of its target, even at short ranges.

Sideslip from the lead puts them back together.

Similar trick can be used against a drone swarm. BOTH without the need of stopping for a weasel.

The CW can also take advantage of this on a more flamboyant scale, as can some ships used by other folks.

Methinks the potential rewards outweigh the risks, especially when playing against folks who aren't as T-bomb happy as I tend to be.

What do y'all think?

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, October 06, 2024 - 11:09 am: Edit

There is a lot to be said for using two ships that way. You can also tractor each other to gain a movement when you normally would not. Since one would move and the other would have to defer to the next impulse. TRACTOR tricks. This can include delaying the move to imp1 of next turn.

So two identical ships in the same hex. Can do a lot of fun things.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, October 07, 2024 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Jeff,

You can certainly use your DDs that way, but I'm probably a little more paranoid about enemy T-bombs (and, if fighting Romulans, nuclear space mines) than you. I once had a... bad... experience in which I ran a stack of a Fed CC and two CAs right over the top of a nuclear space mine. I thought I was moving the stack in a way that it couldn't possibly hit any of the mines the Romulan might have laid. But we were playing on a floating map and on a previous turn had shifted everything about 10 hexes because some ships were nearing the map edge. We shifted the ships and any on-board plasma torpedoes just fine. But I had been keeping track of the Romulan fleet's track in my head, just so I wouldn't run over any mines. And when we shifted the ships and torpedoes, I completely neglected to adjust my mental position for the Romulan's previous track...

I would also note that, at least in my experience, it becomes progressively harder to keep a stack together as the game progresses. As the ships suffer different amounts of damage, their effective combat speeds change. The undamaged or lightly damaged ships may want to fight at a higher speed than the more significantly damaged ones. Do you slow down the entire stack to keep the fast ships close to the slow ones, but maybe allowing your enemy to gain an advantageous position on you entire force? Or do you allow the good ships to continue to maneuver effectively, risking your fleet becoming too separated? I believe the answer to that depends very much on the specific tactical situation.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, October 07, 2024 - 07:49 pm: Edit

Since we are talking Thoilian tactics.

If using webcasters to slow down an enemy fleet. Then perhaps You could get one long range or mid-range PC shot. Followed up by a second latter in the turn a regular are overload?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, October 07, 2024 - 11:50 pm: Edit

Vandar;

Certainly you can try something like that. But (only my personal opinion), it's often not that advantageous.

If you're considering tactics for Tholians with PCs, you're either looking at a fight in the Tholian home galaxy, M81, or you're looking at Tholians in this galaxy during the Early Years.

M81:
Who are your opponents? You're probably fighting Seltorians, who also have PCs. So tactics to maximize the effectiveness of PCs also maximize the effectiveness of your opponent's primary heavy weapon. I'm not saying you should never do something like this. As always, the advisability of the tactic depends on the specific situation. But there are other things you could also try that may often (NOT always) be more useful.

You might use the web caster as a web fist. Or you might place a web in front of your own forces, so that it will solidify just as your ships are one hex behind it and just before you reach a "range break" like 15 or 8. This can create a dilemma for the Selt that you may be able to take advantage of.

Early Years:
Quite simply, if I am playing the Tholian in the Early Years, I consider phaser-1s to be my primary weapon and plan my tactics to optimize those; such as making an oblique attack so that closest approach is range 5. A closest approach or range 4 can also work, particularly since my enemy can't overload heavy weapons. But range 4 makes me a little nervous because of the possibility of an enemy's well timed speed change that I hadn't anticipated; bringing the enemy to range 3, where the phaser-2s become effective.

I'm not saying don't use that tactic. But keep an open mind, alert to other possibilities. Maximizing the effectiveness of the PCs does not necessarily maximize the effectiveness of your fleet as a whole.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, October 08, 2024 - 01:23 am: Edit

Your concerns about t-bombs (and NSM) is a good one; as stated in my last post, I love the blasted things (term used to avoid inappropriate vulgarities ) and I agree wholeheartedly that stacking ships does make them potentially more vulnerable to them.

Does make me think, though, that the biggest use for mines, both in the game and in the real world, is their psychological impact. We don't send people in where the risk of mines is high, just like players don't want to risk losing a good chunk of their forces to mine hits.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 11:41 am: Edit

John and Vandar;

As frequently happens, it took me longer to get to this then I had expected. But I still intend to continue the discussion about "wedding cake versus buzz saw" here. Since the discussion in the A proposal for generator buoys and anchor asteroids thread mostly centered on establishing the web in the first place, I intend to discuss tactical differences between the two web defense set-ups, once they have already been established.

More later, but I just wanted to confirm I hadn't forgotten.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, July 30, 2025 - 05:54 pm: Edit

is all good