Why on earth did the convoy go speed 4? And why continue towards the ISC? That's what killed the freighters. At speed 12 in the other direction, it would have forced the ISC to get that much closer to land plasma, letting the Roms fire first.

Actually, they could have had the SpA tractor the small freighters and run at 16.

T1 Start all the freighters in 1817B at speed 8. Move 1816B, 1815A, 1715A, 1614F. Speed change to 9 and continue in F, ending in 1112F. Arm phasers.

T2 Accelerate to 13 (F-S) or 13/14 (F-L). Have the F-Ls tractor the F-Ss. The ISC are now 31 hexes away, so won't get closer than 14 by EOT, and the Rom PFs can threaten them.

T3 Maintain speed 12+. Even at speed 30, the ISC won't get R5 until i16, and launched plasma won't hit until about i25, having gone 6+ hexes. If the Roms can lab the target, the SPA can tractor it and drag the plasma out to R11+ where it won't hurt much. The Roms also get to launch envelopers and shotguns on T3.

The Rom player really threw this away.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 08:16 pm: Edit

I assumed the freighters were bluffing "weasel hot" to make the ISC think they'd weasel his plasmas.

By Michael C. Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 08:20 pm: Edit

No weasels under the scenario rules for this one...

But I have to say I think Jim is right.

By Ezekiel P. Carpenter-Hyland (Admiral_Zekedak) on Friday, August 07, 2009 - 01:27 am: Edit

Thanks for the input guys.

Don't know what the Romulan captain's plan was in specific. All I can say is he was able to successfully preserve his forces. If he had moved his freighter away from me and fronted the PFs, I would have ignored the convoy. If I killed more than the one PF I did, his flotilla would be understrength and get plastered in the next campaign round. As such, I don't see any real flaw in his planning. In fact I did not expect him to front his convoy at all, and doing so may have coerced me into running just the game he wanted me to.

I will fault his dice rolling however (which has been notoriously bad). He should had killed 3 of my PFs instead of just one plus 2 cripples. Given that the one I lost is going to wind up preventing me from running the flotilla at full strength next round, the extra losses I -should- have had taken would have crippled the group form any operational sense. That would have made a HUGE difference as far as the campaign game was concerned.

By Jacob Karpel (Psybomb) on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 03:12 pm: Edit

Just a quick question: In Historical scenarios, are you allowed to alter the composition of the flotilla? Not like adding an additional Scout or leader, but swapping around the basic attack ones. Just for example, the ones that mount a bunch of Drones operating where there are either Phaser-Gs or a bunch of ADD launchers are just asking to be slagged.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 04:43 pm: Edit

You may get a better answer in the Rules questions

By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Friday, January 08, 2010 - 06:43 pm: Edit

In a historical scenario I'd say no. Because it's Historical, and that was the ships there in the History. And usually a lot of the balance and challenge in those scenarios is in the specific ship selection.

To quote a former Secretary of Defense: "You fight a war with the army you have, not the army you want."

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Saturday, January 09, 2010 - 12:58 am: Edit

Some scenarios will point to changes in the composition of the flotilla in the variations or balance sections. See (SH27.62) for an example.

Otherwise, check with your opponent(s) to test other flotilla compositions. If this gives one side a significant benefit, expect the player of the now weaker force to decline the offer.

By Ezekiel P. Carpenter-Hyland (Admiral_Zekedak) on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 07:29 pm: Edit

For the PF campaign game, we did not use EW (other than from natural sources, including EM) as this is an optional rule. As such, we felt there was no reason to have a scout PF for tactical play. One could have kept the scout and had it serve a quasi-strategic role. One is suggested in the standard PF campaign game rules, that being a reduction in weapon status for forces without the scout. While not part of the published rules set, it seems this reduction could be overcome by having regular ships appear with the PFs, an optional rule in the PF campaign game that we did use.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 07:50 pm: Edit

There is also the issue of an enemy at a WS disadvantage simply avoiding engagement until he's fully stocked. I'd recommend ditching scouts and simply getting a 6th standard PF.

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Sunday, June 06, 2010 - 11:14 pm: Edit

Yeah. Without full EW (and a scout PF), PF kill rates go way, way up.

By Ezekiel Price (Admiralzekedak) on Sunday, October 03, 2010 - 01:42 am: Edit

PF CAMPAIGN; round 2, sector 1

-Rules-
U9 rules from the K module. We are playing the ISC vs. Romulans just after the civil war in Y186. No electronic warfare, pseudo-plasma or wild-weasels. Conventional forces (ships) included.

-Forces-
The Romulans and ISC battle in sector-1 this time. The Romulan player only assigns a Seahawk-A to keep the battlestation and 12xG-III fighters company. The ISC max-out allowed deployments with 1xCL, 1xDD, 2xFF, PF flotilla-A (w/ 6 regular PFs) and PF flotilla-B (w/ 1xPFL, 2xPF, 3xPFD). This put the ISC at a disadvantage in 3 other sectors for round 2.

-Battle Report-
The ISC come at the battlestation form three different directions (ships flanked by flotillas). The ships advance slowly while the PF flotillas charge each flank. The Romulan fighters charge Flotilla-B and delay it, but are driven back with heavy loss. Flotilla-A is greeted by the Sea-A and fire from the battlestation. The Sea-A goes down quickly and phaser-4 fire is ineffective. Flotilla-A then delivers 100 internals to the battlestation, but two are caught by tractor beams and destroyed. Flotilla-B then delivers 90 internals to the battlestation, stripping it of power. As the ISC fleet would finish the battlestation a few impulses later, the battle was ended; turn 2 impulse 17.

-Conclusions-
In campaign terms this battle was significant in only one way, sector-1 can be contested by the ISC in future campaign rounds with much less concentration of force. That seems important, and was the overall ISC objective, but I'm unsure if that was worth possibly loosing 3 other sectors this round.

-Special Note-
This battle had 17 ships (12 of them PFs), 12 fighters and a battlestation. At one point there we had 50 counters on the board. Despite all that, plus rolling and marking off some 250 internals, it only took 2.5 hours of play time.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Sunday, October 03, 2010 - 03:28 pm: Edit

This was always going to go only one way, but the BATS should have been able to take out one or two PFs with concentrated fire (I assume the PFs did get within R10).

Splitting the ISC forces was a mistake; the only reason to do that would be to stop the Seahawk from escaping, but I get the feeling it didn't try.

Lacking weasels or EW, bases are doomed against any seekers. It could have cloaked, but that would have merely delayed the inevitable.

By Ezekiel Price (Admiralzekedak) on Thursday, October 07, 2010 - 10:51 pm: Edit

PFs can suck up 30 damage before even rolling on the DAC, so concentrated battlestation phaser-4 fire at range 10 will not stop even a single PF.

Splitting the ISC forces diluted enemy fire, there-by reducing ISC casualties. It also allowed the ISC to outflank and eliminate not only the Sea-A (which attempted a range 10 "battle pass"), but the Romulan fighters as well. As a final note, it allow multiple wings of ISC forces to hit the same battlestation shield from three different directions as the base rotated. The tactic therefore worked quite well.

Romulans have the most powerful EW device in the game, a cloaking device. Their bases are therefore not doomed unit when confronted with seeking weapons. If that's not enough, this battlestation can phaser down about 80 points of plasma, plus launch another 70 points of it's own.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, October 09, 2010 - 07:33 pm: Edit

"PFs can suck up 30 damage before even rolling on the DAC"

Not sure where this comes from. An ISC PF has a 12-point shield at best (13 for the leader's #1). With packs it can probably spare about 3 points for reinforcement. The first 3 internals will hit hull. That's 18. Admittedly, 4xP4 at R10 will do only 26 so it won't kill it, but it's going to be trailing a lot of smoke and quite possibly have no warp engines left.

I'm not sure how splitting diluted enemy fire; it just lets the BATS get more weapons into arc. Given that someone had to shoot up the fighters, I'm not sure how they were outflanked.

As I said, it could have cloaked but presumably didn't. If it had, the ISC could have parked on top if it, and it would have died as soon as it uncloaked. Phasering down 80 plasma doesn't help that much when the PFs can launch up to 240 points per flotilla per turn, and using P4 against plasma means you're not hurting the enemy.

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Saturday, October 09, 2010 - 07:54 pm: Edit

And whilst I'm at it, the Rom plasma isn't going to do anything very useful either. The PFs are going to be going speed 30, so even the R won't hit unless the PFs are constrained by the map edge. So let's say they hit in the R16 bracket for 25. The flotilla has 12 P3 and 12 P1. The P3 aren't going to be doing anything else, and the P1s may not. Say half of the phasers are in arc. At R1, 6 P3 do 22 damage, so take 11 off the plasma. That leaves 14, for 2 internals, both hull. Add 6 P1 or another 6 P3 and the plasma barely scratches the shield.

The Rom PPT means it might get some internals if the PFs use all their phasers on it and allow the real one to hit, but even then you merely cripple one PF, once.

Envelopers and shotguns don't help, and the F is almost useless.

By Ezekiel Price (Admiralzekedak) on Monday, October 11, 2010 - 08:34 pm: Edit

"PFs can suck up 30 damage before even rolling on the DAC"

ISC PFs had 9 reinforcement on #1 shield (and speed 30). Add 2 batteries, 12 shield and 3 hull for 26.

"I'm not sure how they were outflanked"

The PFs in a flotilla do not all stay in the same hex. As such, they can attack a target from both the front and side simultaneously.

"Phasering down 80 plasma doesn't help that much when the PFs can launch up to 240 points per flotilla per turn"

That's what the cloaking device is for.

"...the F is almost useless"

Perhaps, though they can be bolted in mass (something fighter squads are unable to do) or used to push targets. In this battle a couple of surviving fighters did used plasma Fs to destroy a crippled PF caught in the battlestation's tractor beam. Seeing as that was 1/2 of the losses inflicted by the Romulans, they seemed as effective as the base's 6xP-4s.

By Kerry E Mullan (Nomad17) on Monday, October 11, 2010 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Right but at R3 when the trac is effective 2 P4 usually means a crippled PF with 3 meaning a destroyed one. By not allowing weasels the base is dead as soon as you start anyway.

I mean you could just sit and launch 12 Ftorps from R12 just bouncing the BATT fire. Lose nothing just taking 5 turns instead of 2.

It's not like you don't know when what shield will be where at what point in time. Attack T1 you cripple the shield with 40 ints and from there you hit it with 80 ints a turn(or 120 if it does not defensive fire).

I mean really taking 1000 points of ships vs 450 the loss is near automatic, adding in no WW actually makes a 230 point BATTs worth 100 or so. Hopefully the ISC are happy losing the other 3 sectors then.

By Ezekiel Price (Admiralzekedak) on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Lots of interesting points worth responding to...

Several people have pointed out that the battlestation was doomed. Well, how doomed was it?

The ISC had 750 points of ships (mostly PFs as this is a PF campaign). All the regular ships held fire and stayed away from the battlestation, making the battle roughly even in BPV points at 500 each. In terms of U9, the outcome of the battle was sector 1 will now have a SparrowHawk PF tender (other damage/reinforcements for this sector even out).

While it's true that playing without WWs makes things more difficult for both the ISC and Romulan bases, this is mitigated by attackers not having PPTs, and in the case of the Romulan base a cloaking device as well. My thinking is one PF flotilla is a match, particularly with the fighter squadron thrown in. Thing is, battlestations can get as many additional forces as any other sector. If you want to contest a sector holding an enemy battlestation, you are better off going in with enough to at least make a good show of it. Having to retreat from a base assault is costly and demoralizing.

There will be no battle in sector 2 as a Romulan Starhawk PF flotilla is unopposed there.

Sector 3 will have a Romulan Centurion flotilla and 1xSea-A face off against an ISC PF flotilla.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 - 09:29 pm: Edit

You're welcome to play your way, but bases absolutely need their weasels to survive against seeking weapons, especially plasma. Ships and fighters can run. Bases can't. Mines help keep the PF back but aren't the whole show by any means especially if you are using sabot torps. (don't tell me. You aren't giving bases their minefields either...)

Bases become weak targets to be saved rather than hard-to-crack defensible fortresses. This is OK, but it is a major difference in how things work, both for ship battles and base defenses.

It does have the virtue of making combat go faster. Plasma in your environment is much deadlier than in "regulation SFB".

You've chosen a good two races to match up in your environment. The romulans have the cloak which can shed plasma or reduce its damage. The ISC have the PPD which is reasonably effective agianst a cloaked ship and a nasty mizia weapon.

Unfortunatley, the ISC have problematic PFs for this campaign. They have good phasers, but lousy sustained plasma launch and sustained plasma launch is something that this campaign rewards.

PF variants like escort PF in play?

By Ezekiel Price (Admiralzekedak) on Wednesday, October 13, 2010 - 07:58 pm: Edit

In all honesty, I find tournament SFB rather dull. The game gets fun again for me when there are 10 or 20 ships fighting, therefore a PF campaign instead of a base campaign. U9 does have optional minefields, but they do not appear in battlestation sectors.

Thanks for the questions/comments about tactics.

In our campaign 1/2 of flotillas may have up to 3 variants of the same type. Escort PF are not allowed, but the plasma-D PFs are available. I've enjoyed using these, along with the phaser variants.

I find myself commonly running low on plasma ammo in flotilla dogfights, particularly against Centurion PFs, but normal PF operations (speed 30) make it very hard to recharge more than one plasma-F per turn. The consequence in our campaign has been that flotillas break off engagement after a turn or two. If the ISC holds a final plasma launch, opposing forces will probably choose to recharge for another pass we well instead of making a run.

There is only a single PPD box in the game. It's been sitting unused on the ISC battlestation.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, October 14, 2010 - 04:13 pm: Edit

What's this about the PFs reinforcing their number 1 shield? PFs are 1-1 on general reinforcement aren't they? Unless a shield is already down or weakened why in the world would they ever specific reinforce?

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Thursday, October 14, 2010 - 04:38 pm: Edit

One word... Hellbores

Edit: The way the rule works, damage is applied to general reinforcement before breaking it down between shields. You can specifically reinforce one shield so as hellbore damge can be applied equally or directecd to a specific shield, provided it is the weakest of the group.

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Saturday, November 12, 2011 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Base Assualt: Gorns attacking Lyrans

FORCES:
Gorns are attacking with 6x CLF and 1x BC with a seeking weapons drogue
Lyrans are defending with 1x BATS+ w/ HPM, 2x BOB-A flotillas, and 2x Minefield pkgs

RULES:
Largely everything; Full EW, Secret mine placement, Blind minefield detection, but no Tac-Intel.

I'm playing the Gorns.

PROBLEM: Wild Scouts (K1.756).

Ordinarily this fleet would walk up to range 20 (or 15) and give the base 14 enveloped PL-Ss spaced to hit in the last 28 impulses of a turn. Reload, rinse, repeat. (Case in point, I'm doing this to a federation BATS in a related game). Weasels aren't the problem, neither is the phaser firepower of the attrition units or the +3 shift the base can spit out against self-guided plasmas.

It's the possibility of speed-12, range-15-from-the-BATS wild-swac-like unprintables.

I worry about surrounding the base (three groups of 2x CLs and a BC tossed in somewhere) since one or both flotillas will likely turn one of those groups into a tasty snack. But surrounding the Scouts seems to be the only option (short of bulling through the minefield and socking the base at range 1-5 with what survives).

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Sunday, November 13, 2011 - 07:34 pm: Edit

He's only got the two scouts. Once he goes wild with each one once, they're pretty well dead.
I'd be more worried about the minefield but that's me.