Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 05, 2020	25		06/29 07:24pm
	Archive through August 19, 2020	25		08/20 10:39am
	Archive through September 27, 2020	25		11/12 02:51pm
	Archive through February 02, 2021	25		02/04 08:56am
	Archive through May 12, 2021	25		05/14 12:58am
	Archive through July 08, 2022	25		01/14 12:17am
	Archive through May 11, 2023	25		05/14 12:07pm

I'd say deathrider PFs are more likely. spaced 3 hexes apart (to avoid multiple PFs being affected by 1 mine) and speed 3o they should be pretty evil.

You think the base can deal with 10 pfs a turn?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, May 12, 2023 - 10:30 am: Edit

I thought about that, too, Mike.

Two potential problems...

One: Timeframe. Are Gunboats available?

Two: Size class. Unless the mines are set to go off against Size Class 5 targets, the deathriders are pretty useless. I have encountered NSM that are programmed to ignore anything smaller than SC4.

Still, it is a good thought.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Friday, May 12, 2023 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Just to muddy the waters even more, add command detonated, and deadman switched mines and everything gets even more crazy.

Pre Gunboats, a NSM set to an ignore anything smaller than a Size 4 target is sound, 35 points on a swarm of drones is overkill and wasteful. But with gunboats…. It becomes a viable choice to consider. There is not a gunboat out there that could eat an NSM and not end up a mission kill, if it didn’t pop outright, though. Still wasteful, but not bad enough not to consider. And if you can catch two or more gunboats in blast range, even better.

Using freighters is not a horrible idea, we even have rules for it. But suicide freighters are usually limited to “they think it’s benign” or “after the first layer or two of defenses are probed and the minefield is mostly mapped out.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 13, 2023 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Mike,

Don't be too downcast about your "Breaking the BuzzSaw" not working. If destroying an asteroid anchor also destroyed its anchor status, your own "Tholian Pentagram of Lloth" from Captain's Log 29 wouldn't be viable. It would stil be legal to build such a structure but the attacker would be able to defeat it very easily by blasting the asteroid anchors from long range.

Swings and roundabouts...

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, May 14, 2023 - 12:07 pm: Edit

I had almost forgotten about the Pentagram. I wonder if anyone has ever actually played out an attack on one.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, May 22, 2023 - 07:37 pm: Edit

Jeff, another thought about your slew of unmanned freighters is how they fit within the command rating of the command ship. It's a numbers game. Too many freighters, not enough real warships.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, May 23, 2023 - 07:37 am: Edit

Do suicide freighters count for command limits?

I always thought of them as more like off map drone bombardment...

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Wednesday, May 24, 2023 - 12:17 am: Edit

S8.541 in Advanced Missions states:
All cargo ships (with exceptions) are considered to be one ship for purposes of determining Command rating requirements. However, the total number of ships cannot exceed the command rating of the flagship.
End of quote.
I struggle with the interpretation of this rule.
Related might be G14.73 Strategic Freighter Deployment (via tug) and G14.22 Towing (pods)
Although, G14.22 has minimal info.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 24, 2023 - 02:32 am: Edit

That soulds like this.

Say the flagship has a command rating of 8. Then the most freighters you could have would be that (8) and they would all count as one ship. You could then normally have seven additional ships.

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Wednesday, May 24, 2023 - 07:32 am: Edit

When you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, May 24, 2023 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Joseph and Richard, that rule as quoted ignores (S8.54) CARGO SHIPS (including freighters, cargo ships, cargo pods, cargo packs, cargo pallets, and cargo PFs) cannot be include unless the mission of the scenario is to deliver cargo (or is a convoy,
etc.).

The purpose of the freighters is to be suicide freighters, not deliver cargo.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, May 24, 2024 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Ya know, technically, those freighters are delivering explosive materials somewhere …

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 10, 2024 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Impulsively Erratic Paravian Decisions
Gary Carney
HMCS Ontario

For the "lost empire" Paravians of Star Fleet Battles Module C6, or for their playtest "Omega's Lost Futures" counterparts previewed in Captain's Log #54, there are a number of instances in which the use of Erratic Maneuvers might be considered: such as when approaching an enemy target, when withdrawing from the scene if so required, or perhaps when protecting a Raid Mothership or another key mobile logistical asset in the face of hostile pursuit.

When considering whether or not to place their ship under EM, one aspect for the ship’s captain to weigh up is the use of warp engine power versus impulse engine power for this purpose. Not least since, unlike the use of warp power (which scales based on the Move Cost of the ship in question), impulse power used for EM has the same power cost regardless of the ship’s Move Cost. Which makes the use of impulse power for this purpose less power-efficient for ships with a Move Cost lower than 1; about even at MC 1 itself; and more cost-effective for ships with a MC greater than 1. That said, since only one point of impulse engine power can be used to help move the actual ship, and since “spare” warp engine power might be needed for other purposes (such as to overload a quantum wave torpedo or few), there are instances when even a less cost-effective option on paper can become more of a situational benefit in practice.

In and of itself, this concept is nothing new for the empires of the Alpha or Omega octants. However, one way in which Paravian starship design lends itself to this tactic is in their use of comparatively large impulse engines, when compared to those aboard the ships of many of their opponents.

For example: the Paravian heavy cruiser in C6 has six impulse engine boxes as standard. Should its captain so wish, all six of these boxes can be assigned to generate EM, leaving the warp engines (plus the auxiliary power reactors added in the Y168 refit) free for other purposes, minus the cost of housekeeping.

This advantage is further leveraged by a number of other Paravian cruiser designs: such as the command cruiser and strike cruiser, each of which being equipped with eight impulse engine boxes (and two APRs post-refit); the heavy battlecruiser, which has ten impulse boxes and four APRs as standard; or the battle carrier and battle control ship, which each have twelve impulse boxes and three APRs to draw upon.

A Paravian cruiser equipped with quantum wave torpedoes can afford to skip arming these weapons while at a distance from a target base, colony world, or convoy - not least since QWTs cannot begin a scenario held under non-scenario-specific circumstances. However, while the antiproton heavy cruiser previewed in CL54 can begin a scenario at Weapons Status III with its antiproton beams and antiproton lance fully armed, it must pay three points of power to hold them each turn. Which can make the CAB marginally slower on a distant approach vector than its QWT-armed counterpart, all other expenditures being equal.

Each Paravian Size Class 2 warship currently in print has enough impulse engine power to make use of EM with room to spare, making this a particularly useful tactic for those larger units. Yet perhaps the most surprising case of this is with the dreadnought and battleship Raid Mothership variants.

Consider: if a Paravian tug is carrying two or three pod-weights’ worth of pods, or if a Paravian light tactical transport is carrying one or two pod-weights’ worth, these variants can still use their impulse decks to pay for EM if so required – yet, that same adjustment in Move Cost which makes it more cost-effective to use impulse engine power to go on EM still leaves proportionally fewer warp engine points spare to actually move the ship. Although, since a tug carrying a single pod-weight’s worth has no Move Cost penalty, it can maintain a comparatively high battle speed under EM if the pod in question has enough APRs to help pay for housekeeping and other items.

In contrast, both the DNR and BBR (to use their provisional Federation and Empire designations from Captain’s Log #48) can carry their full pod-weight allocations (three and four pod’s worth respectively) with no reduction in their base hulls' respective Move Costs. So not only can they turn to their impulse decks to produce the EM effect; depending on the choice of pod(s) being attached, these hulls can lean into the pod-mounted APR arrays to pay for housekeeping and self-generated ECM, and still have enough warp and impulse power to move at (or close to) Speed 31!

All of which might help further explain why the “Mapsheet P” Paravians were so keen to leverage their supply of “Middle Years” dreadnought hulls for use as Raid Motherships – and, while data on Size Class 2 ships in Omega-Paravian service remains to be decoded from the Air Force data tapes at this time of typing, why such variants might serve their interests also.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, June 13, 2024 - 02:35 pm: Edit

As an adjunct to the above Term Paper, I was thinking of cases in which a Paravian scout ship (to include a transport equipped with one or more scout pods) might be better served leaning into the use of their special sensors, as opposed to relying on EM.

-----

For example: a Paravian tug equipped with a scout pod has 30 warp, 6 impulse, and five batteries on the base hull, plus 8 APRs on the pod. Since Paravian scout pods are single-weight, the tug's Move Cost is unaffected.

By my calculations (and apologies if any of this is mistaken), if one chooses to keep the batteries in reserve, going on EM plus generating 6 points of ECM plus paying 4 points for housekeeping would cost 6 impulse, 8 APRs, and 2 warp - leaving the tug capable of moving at Speed 28, with 10 points of ECM creating a +3 die roll shift.

Alternatively, if the tug does not use EM, and instead uses one of its pod-mounted scout channels to generate ECM, while still generating ECM from the ship's own systems: that plus housekeeping would cost 6+1+6+4 = 17 points of power. While impulse power does not have to be used, it might sill be preferable to using up valuable warp engine points - which would then cost 6 impulse, 8 APR, and 3 warp, leaving the tug capable of moving at Speed 27, while generating 12 points of ECM... for the same die roll shift. Albeit with a bit more padding, in the face of enemy ECCM.

Not much to split the two options there, it would seem - unless the tug captain prefers to keep the second scout channel on standby, in case battery power is needed to use it (which cannot be done if the ship is under EM).

-----

In contrast, the sample DNR pod configuration offered on Shapeways has two self-defence pods and a single scout pod.

This combination provides 45 warp, 8 impulse, and 4 batteries on the base hull, plus 16 APRs (4+4+8) and 4 more batteries (2+2) from the three pods - and no change in Move Cost.

Again, if going with the EM option (and again, if I haven't made any miscalculations here): this would cost 6 impulse, 6.5 housekeeping, plus 6 for hull-generated ECM: using 7 impulse and 11.5 APR points to pay for this, the ship can move at Speed 31 with a few points of APR power to spare, creating the same 10 points of ECM (and +3 EW shift).

Alternatively, skipping EM and using one of the scout channels costs 6+1+6.5+6 = 19.5 points of power. One could use all 16 APRs plus 3.5 points of impulse power to do so, and still be able to move at Speed 31, with one point less of power to spare, yet generating 12 ECM (for the same +3 EW shift). And that still leaves the other scout channel free to be used for another purpose - say, for offensive EW against a pursuing ship.

In which case, it's probably better to go with the latter option, if trying to evade interception.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, January 03, 2025 - 12:08 pm: Edit

Maulers in Wedding Cake Defense

Alan Trevor
USS Virginia

Though the Tholians never developed mauler technology, Module R4T provided them with two "conjectural" maulers; one based on the Archeo-Tholian CA and the other based on the CW. If playing a "non-historical" campaign allowing conjectural units, these maulers can play a very useful role in base defense for the Tholians. But their optimal targeting strategy will often be different than that employed by maulers of other empires. The peculiarities of wedding cake defense will frequently enable a Tholian mauler to make at least two attacks (sometimes more) during the battle. So the first attack should not be against a major warship at range-1. The mauler is likely to be very badly damaged in such an action and will have minimal effect for the rest of the battle. Instead, if the mauler moves onto the middle web strand opposite something like an F5, it can do severe damage at range-2 and withdraw back behind the web with an excellent chance of receiving no internal damage. It can then refill its batteries safely behind the web, while still hitting the attackers with 5 (CWM) or 6 (CAM) phaser-1s each turn. Eventually, if the enemy is strong enough, they may breach thr outer web strand and head toward the middle strand. That is the time for the mauler to make its "sacrificial" attack at range-1, and augmenting the batteries with addional power from the engines. A CAM (the more powerful of the two Tholian maulers) at range-1 can hit the target ship with 6 phaser-1s and 34 points from the batteries, augmented by, let's say, 15 points from the engines and APR. This is a 98 point maul, plus 32 points from the phasers; a 130 point alpha strike that the enemy cannot, in most cases, prevent. So the Tholian's first maul attack should be made with survivability and safe recovery back behind the web as paramount considerations, severely damaging a small ship while preserving the ability to later inflict a much more crippling attack on a larger ship.

Mauler effectiveness in that initial attack can be enhanced by coordinating with other Tholian assets. Per (R7.F6) SPIDER-IIP PHASER FIGHTER (S-IIP), half the fighters in a base defense can be Spider-IIPs (one phaser-2, one phaser-3) while the other half would be Spider-IIIs (two phaser-3s). Fighting behind the middle web and firing at range-3 against an attacker on the outer web, this will cause 39 points of damage per turn; a useful amount but not "crippling" in and of itself. the fighters could advance onto the middle web and engage at range-2, This will cause far more damage (77 points on average) but will likely result in many of the fighters being destroyed, or at least crippled, by enemy fire. But if those fighters are paired with a mauler, the combination can attack something much larger than an F5 and still have the mauler survive unscathed except for a damaged front shield. One option would be for the fighters to advance on to the middle web first and fire on the target. They have enough firepower at range-2 to do internals even against a dreadnought. Does the dreadnought return fire? If no, the fighters return behind the middle web and the mauler adds its 23 points of damage from 6 phaser-1s fired at range-3. But if the dreadnought does fire on the fighters, the mauler than advances and inflicts 63 points of its own (34 batteries and 6 phaser-1s at range-2) while the enemy dreadnought has already expended most of its firepower against cheap, easily replaceable, attrition units. The mauler itself will be able to safely pull back behind the web. An alternative would be for the mauler to advance first. It will be moving slowly so can have a large "brick" from the engines. If the dreadnought fires on the mauler, the mauler augments that brick with 34 points from the batteries. In such a scenario, it is entirely feasible for the CAM to have a total of about 80 points of front protection, perhaps even more. And because the dreadnought has expended massive firepower against that brick, draining the mauler's batteries but probably doing few or no internals, the fighters can then safely advance to engage from range-2 (combined with the maulers 6 phaser-1s and (after the mauler turns) its 4 RX phaser-3s.

There are many variations on this approach, including having the mauler and fighters advance on to the middle web simultaneously. And the mauler will have to allocate some energy for "negatve tractor" as part of its scheme to get back behind the middle web. Finally, the above numbers don't take into account ECM/ECCM (though the mauler will probably have ECCM support from the base). But used properly, a Tholian mauler can greatly strengthen a wedding cake defense.