Archive through February 10, 2014
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: General Tactics Discussion:
General Tactics:
Archive through February 10, 2014
The Skyhawk-X is a weird special case here. With 6 batteries on a DD hull (and therefore 24 points of reserve power), you could load the ship's entire warp engine output into empty batteries.
I found myself deciding what I *needed* to spend at EA and sloshing the rest into batteries. This is something of a mistake because the temptation exists to throw energy at whatever problem is in front of me right now. I don't always have it later when I *really* want it.
Generally speaking, in your experience do you have to knock down multiple shields on an opponents ship to destroy the ship or does a defeated ship usually only have one shield down? What sort of shield damage does the winning ship usually sustain?
/quote{What sort of shield damage does the winning ship usually sustain?}
Seen winning ships with almost no shield damage, seen them with no shields left at all.
Same with losing ships.
Internal damage can be minimized by maneuver. One ship can keep one shield in it's arc, while keeping down shields out of arc. Or keep a reenforced shield in arc to absorb the damage.
Then the odds factor falls into play, are the dice with you, giving/preventing more damage.
A dead ship with only one shield down is usually a ship that was killed quickly. Say in a fleet action.
Even in a tournament it will vary a whole lot. If you let a Hydran and its Stingers alpha strike you at range 1, it's one shield. If it's a matter of Gorn sandpaper it could be 5 shields.
In general, it is the most efficient use of damage generated is to shoot down a single shield on the target ship and kill or cripple that ship with continued fire through that shield.
The challenge, of course, is to concentrate the available fire on that single shield. The challenges are: 1) geometry - not all of the ships (or fighters) firing, or not all of the seekers landing may be maneuvered such that their fire falls on a single shield (on a single impulse); and 2) timing - not all fire may be available to fire on a single impulse or when you have maneuvered back onto the down shield; and 3)range - some weapons may be fired at a range with poor odds on down shield but may be fired later on a fresh shield with good odds of bringing it down (which may make you hesitate to add those out of range weapons to the concentrated fire).
The defender has some ability to maneuver so as to complicate the attacker's ability to concentrate fire in all 3 areas: 1)geometry - he may maneuver so as to split shields against a spread out fleet or so as to force seekers to land not on the facing shield; 2) timing - he may keep a satisfied turn mode or HET so as to immediately bring a fresh shield to bear; and 3) range - he may maneuver so as to keep some units out of optimal firing range.
Fleet battles offer the attacker the best control to avoid all 3 complications - at least in the opening move. In fleet battles, you have the option of organizing your fleet formation so as to concentrate fire all *on one impulse* on a target sufficient to destroy or cripple a ship (most crudely a superstack, but there are other formations) even at moderate ranges. Note that Mizia fire is not (at all) important if the target is to be quickly crippled (in fact you don't want to Mizia if you want to most efficiently immobilize or explode the target).
Duels (most notably tournament) offer fewer opportunities to outright cripple your opponent in a single impulse. This usually requires knife fighting range or landing a stack of seekers (using an anchor). So it usually takes several turns/exchanges of fire to destroy a target. Problems of geometry and range become problems of timing. In general, combining fire onto previously weakened shields (when your opponent fails to do so) is likely to lead to your victory. Not only is this more efficient, but the Mizia effect can become dominant as well. However, range is a big equalizer, and it is entirely possible to accept a handful of internals through a weak shield with the purpose of a executing a devastating overrun/anchor later in the turn (where hitting on a weak shield may not be so important).
If you must do shield damage on several shields, consider always trying to hit your opponent's front shields (and given him your rears if you can). A shot into a rear shield really needs to be getting 20+ internals or Mizia. If, you get 15 points on 2 front shields and 6 internals (hull and fluff) through a rear, you may find yourself pretty hamstrung on the attack maneuver (particularly once you opponent shoots through your last good front shield).
On *average* I believe many tournament games are won by either concentrating fire on the fewest number of shields OR by trading your rears for your opponents fronts (thereby setting up a definitive overrun against a maneuver challenged opponent).
A friend and I were discussing ways to shorten or lengthen a game of SFB. He suggested reducing a ships shields to four, leaving the strength of the shields the same and having them cover 90 degree arcs for a shorter game. His logic was that the game would be over sooner because you would run out of shields sooner. His next theory was to double the number of shields to 12 and keep them the same strength but have them only cover 30 degree arcs, theory being that the game would take longer since you would have more shields to hide behind. I don't think either of these would make much difference because in my experience usually a ship will be destroyed after losing one or two shields and rarely three. The game wouldn't get speed up or slowed down by his reduction or increase in the number of shields (strength would be the same) because the fourth shield wouldn't matter as it wouldn't get hit and in his game lengthening would be the same as then there would be nine shields that never even got damaged in my opinion.
Thoughts?
Some additional thoughts...
While it is still preferable to bring down a front shield if you have a hellbores or enveloping plasma torpedoes, these weapons do mitigate the disadvantage of taking down an opponents rear shield somewhat since these weapons shoot around corners, after a fashion. A danger when facing a HB or EPT opponent is that you fail to close for a definitive shot and play too long at range (or otherwise profiglately loose your shield boxes - as the previous poster mentioned "sandpaper"). The saber dance can have the same effect too. If all of your shield directions are down below 10 pts, you really can't prevent any direct fire strike (phasers, bolts) from doing critical damage. Even a game that takes 20 turns for the players chipping away 5 shield boxes a turn will become untenable for one or both players at that point.
Many games are decided, IMHO, when one player panics that his shield situation has become untenable - he saw it too late - and then dives in for the attack. His opponent deflects the attack - and then kills his shield weakened opponent.
Many other games (perhaps more) are decided when one player thinks he has protected his weak shield against attack (say by TACing, or HET, or some other maneuver) but his opponent has figured away to land fire through a down shield (say shuttles, or HET, or tractoring for a better turn mode, or dipsy doodle, etc.).
Regarding changing shields and effect on game...
As you know, multi turn arming weapons do greater damage than their single turn counter parts on average. And drones do great damage but are easier to shoot down. The various opponents do not have exactly the same weapons. And the rate at which these weapons do damage, and the odds thereof differ.
I would hypothesize that this would drastically effect balance. Although sitting here for 10 minutes I've convinced myself that both stronger and weaker shields struck on a single impulse would benefit ships with greater crunch power. Which I'm not sure is the correct answer.
The idea is that fewer stronger shields would only get breached on the first pass by the highest crunch power ships. Kind of like why an Andro fears a Fed a bit at R4 but not so much a Kzinti DF attack.
Whereas more weaker shields would get breached for internals with every shot by every ship. The highest crunch power ships would always burn through the fluff on their first shot (whereas now the weaker crunch power ship's first shot would be more like a the stronger crunch power ship shot - does not quite burn through the fluff).
To clarify a ship with normal six 24 box shields (60 degree arcs) would have four 24 box shields (90 degree arcs)in the quick game or twelve 24 box (30 degree arcs) shields in the longer version of the game.
Hmm...
I still think balance would be problematic. It's a bit easier to figure out in this example.
On the first exchange the results are the same.
Consider Fed vs. Klingon.
Say Fed does average first shot. Does some internals. Klingon mostly shoots out a front shield. With fewer front shields, the Fed will have no front shields on his second shot but the Klingon will have some. Advantage Klingon. With more front shields, the Klingon will rarely, if ever, get a weakened shield to fire on. Advantage Fed.
Changing the total number of shields will also effect the balance between "normal" weapons and those (like hellbores and enveloping plasma torpedoes) which spread their damage over multiple shields.
I'm posting here because I didn't find a Tournament-Tactics thread and did not find a WYN-Tactics thread. This is an attempt to move the discussion from the Netkill thread to here, with a repost from Josh.
WAX(11g1) vs WBS(BB):
Quote:Well the WYN Aux 11g1 is tricky for sure.
I don't have all the answers on what you do to defeat the ship. Several players offered good suggestions above, but id like to point out that counter drones are risky and even if they work wont hurt the WYN.
One tactic I've seen disruptor ships use is to use reinforcement turn 1 instead of powering the disruptors, I think that's a pretty risky plan because 4 drones wont even slow the WYN Aux down.
My feeling is the key is to get on the WYN Aux's tail, it can't HET, and your GBS has a significant TM advantage. Work your way onto the aft shields, and remember to watch his movement very closely to try and guess which shield has the brick. Try not to shoot that shield, turn after turn of wasted bricks will demoralize the Aux captain. And if you can stay on the 3-4-5 shields you have taken 2 of his phaser 1's out of arc.
And if your going to get anchored by the Aux do try not to be on his LS or anywhere in FA. Without the phaser G it will take all the built in phaser 3's plus phaser 1's to deal with your seeking weapon threat.
I would always try to have a couple weasels powered, but do everything possible to not use them. What I usually do is try to use the tournament barrier to avoid the drones and anchor or plot the weaseling at EA but its still very risky.
I have always said the best way to learn to beat a ship is to play that ship, nothing else will teach you its weakness like time playing it.
If it has one its got to be the number 3 shield, no phaser g there, and the FA phaser 1's aren't in that arc. So I would try to launch drones to support an attack run with direct fire weapons so that the majority of the Aux ph 1 360's would be forced into anti drone work. About the only time you will have the chance is when the Aux is in a corner and making a turn the direction you want.
Another thing to remember is the Aux will usually have either a brick OR tractor usually not both. If he's thinking brick and you go for the tractor you may have a good shot at landing drones and suicide shuttles if your out of LS arc. With two shuttle bays in a single impulse you can launch 2 type IV drones, 2 type I's and 2 SS which is actually one SS more than the Aux 11g1 can launch in an impulse.
Try to use the Aux's tricks against it, its too fast for speed 20 drones to seriously threaten it, but its also limited to speed 20 drones so perhaps when your using your superior turn mode to get on his 4 shield you can juke the drones, that would force the Aux to decide if trailing drones were worth the channels they were taking up or if he would be better off dropping control to launch fresh ones that you would have to use weapons on or abandon the chase.
The Aux 11g1 works by combining an insane power curve with the most power efficient weapons in the game. I think to defeat it you have to adjust your tactics to maximize the use of your own ships power and seeking weapons. The GBS has a lot of weapons but powering 4 overloads its not going to be able to stay up with an Aux 11g1 so maybe for a time while your maneuvering into his RA you should avoid spending much on disprtors and consider the power you could save by not carrying as many special mission shuttles. If you plan to tractor and kill him quickly then suicide shuttles will be handy, but if your wanting to run him out of drones over a long game your probably wasting a lot of power powering suicide shuttles.
I'm not sure how effective "splattering drones" all over the map will be the Aux will probably stay between speed 21 and more often 31 and you will probably end up with the drones trailing him within a turn. I'm all for spreading them out against a ship you expect will weasel but the Aux 11g1 will do everything it can to not have to weasel.
The problem with counter drones is at high speed you need to be absolutely certain your going to intercept his drone when you think you are. And they are a non renewable resource and your ship doesn't lack phaser 3's in good arcs. So I would really think about using speed and phasers to counter his drones. He only has 4 racks of medium speed drones, keep them pruned back every turn and there only going to cost you a few points of phaser energy.
You have 6 phaser 1's in FA and 4 disruptors, all the Aux 11g1 has is phasers which are fairly weak outside range 5. But as I pointed out before if you can stay outside FA and that shouldn't be that hard against a TM D ship that cant HET. If you can get on the 3 or 4 shield at r4 or 5 you out phaser the Aux so I think that should be the goal, then just hammer away at him till there isn't a shield to reinforce while avoiding his tractors.
I hope that helps Greg, don't lose hope I think this one is winnable for the GBS.
I have some things to add to Josh's statements.
Many WAX captains will put the phaser-G in a wing-mount, simply because the increased arc (LS vs FA) helps with drone defense.
Additionally, I've found that aiming to be on the #3/4/5 shields is not the only viable tactic against the WAX. Often times I (as the WAX captain) end up in some sort of "death spiral" maneuver, where I'm trying to get the opponent into FA, he's trying to stay out of FA, and we both end up turning around some common point. This plays to the opponent's strength, in that it's usually outside of effective phaser range, but he is commonly (particularly in the WBS) able to bring more phasers to bear. Net result could be that the WAX loses a shield before the WBS does. The better TM of the WBS would normally allow the WBS to get a FA shot on a flank shield of the WAX at some point, unless the WAX is able to use his drones to cause the WBS to make broader turns than it is capable of making.
Keep in mind that the WAX is not going to weasel. He usually has too many drones out to want to lose them to a tracking-drop and a stopped WAX is a dead WAX. I have never seen a WAX who stopped, win a game.
The tournament tactics thread is in the Tournament Zone here. But this will do OK.
My thought about "splattering drones across the map" was that as they'll tend to trail far behind, you can cut him off when he comes out of a corner. The basic issue with a fast ship running away is that it has to go somewhere, and then it has to come back again. If half your drones stay as far left as possible and the others stay right, the pig will eventually have to maneuver to avoid one of them rather than just having them trailing in a single stack. Whether it's worthwhile is another matter.
Ok, some general tactics questions based on my recent games on SFBOL. First off, thanks to players Sir Krotar, Crash and Burn, Droid, Vandor, GFB who've taken the time to point out exactly how they dis-assembled me 
. All kidding aside the SFBOL community is the most patient, accomodating group of players I've come across in any game I've played. Thanks to you all. I look forward to the day I can blow you all up.
I've been flying the Fed because as a beginner it seemed to be the easiest ship to learn. So, from the perspective of a Fed player these are some questions I've had. Any insight on the following would be greatly appreciated:
1. Why not skip the Fed O/L energy?
Game after game I find myself running around the board trying to get a ship into range 8 or less and taking a hell of a beating while I do it. If I skip the bonus energy I only pay 4 points to hold standards. I have 10 more points for speed and I can fire from a distance. Isn't that a fair exchange? In a game against Sir Krotar I carried around overloaded photons for 5 turns. That's 40 points on holding power alone. There's got to be a better way to use 40 points!
2. Speed Plots:
Are players choosing speed plots based on their Turn Mode brackets? Sounds like a stupid question but I'm trying to go as fast as I can but I get the impression that the better players are choosing a notch or two lower on the speedometer so that they stay in a better turn mode. Is this something that players consider when plotting speed?
3. Emergency Decel:
Holy smokes this is painful. Is this ever a Plan A option? Is it a desperation move?
4. Fighting Plasma:
Do those furshlugginer launchers ever run out of gas? This is the storyline for every plasma match I've been in:
*Fed sees Big Plasma
*Fed runs from plasma
*Fed chases Big Plasma
*Fed runs from plasma
*Lather, rinse, repeat
*Fed gets frustrated
*Fed charges Big Plasma
*Fed eats plasma.
*Fed eats plasma.
*Lather rinse repeat
*Fed dies
How do good players handle plasma?
Thanks all.
1) A "by the book" Fed TCC starts with the photons half overloaded. It's entirely your option to forgo that energy and just hold all standards. But I've found it's a viable tactic to hold half of your photons fully-overloaded and the other half std-loaded. At that point it's your option if you want to overload the other two or not.
A patient Fed player will certainly get to overload range. The threat of overloads is usually enough to push someone around. Patience will usually get you your range-4 shot, unless the player is very good.
2) Certainly. Pay attention to your turn-mode chart (no matter what ship you're flying). More often than not, your opponent is choosing a speed plot that gets them what they want and still plays to their turn-mode.
3) Emer Decel is indeed very painful. Usually the ship that uses it is in dire straits, because once one player stops, the other is free to call the tempo of the battle (for the two or three turns it takes to get back up to speed, plus however many turns the decel'd ship decides to TAC).
An alternative to Emer Decelling, is to hit the wall. You take 5 damage on the shield facing the wall (which is usually pointed away from the other guy's guns) and you don't have the 16 impulse period of no movement. But you still lose all of your plotted movement.
It's not always the case, but once you stop the game is just about over. Try to make sure you really gain something when you decide to stop, or else you hand them the game.
4) It's common knowledge that the Feds have a hard time against plasma. A Plasma ship going "by the book" will launch when you are performing an attack run at range 12: any further out, and you can simply turn and run the thing out. Any closer, and you get a good shot before getting whacked. I've found that I can usually get to range 8, take my shot, and take it for moderate damage on a flank shield. However, range 8 from a Fed is considered sub-optimal for the Fed.
Against plasma, it is perhaps a good point to take a range-8 alpha and then spend the rest of the game as a phaser boat. See what Module T says about the Fed tactics concerning this. Basically, the technique is to dip into range 8 or to range 5, take a phaser shot, and run like a monkey. It's imperative to keep banging on the same couple of shields (even if it means not quite getting to the range you want), or else you will run out of shielding before he does. It is equally imperative that you don't fire your phasers outside of range 8 unless he actually shows you a down shield.
Hi Sebastian, welcome to the tournament game.
Many new players are attracted to the Fed TCC because of its relation to the TV show, seemingly large punch, and simple rules. Unfortunately, the Fed is one of the most difficult ships to play well. It is all about timing and and maintaining the threat of the Photon jackpot to overcome its very high variance and win even 50% of its games..
1. Why not skip the Fed O/L energy?
Firing outside of range 8 is almost always a very bad idea. Many times the Fed should not fire outside of range 4.
As I mentioned previously, the Fed needs the threat of the 64 pt photon jackpot with phasers in order to manipulate his opponent. As you mentioned, holding 16 ptrs is expensive, so timing and deception is needed to give you the room not to always have fully armed photons (while raising doubt in your opponent's mind). The kind of deception required is difficult for a beginner because it is easy to show that you don't have full overloads by making many seemingly innocuous moves. Playing poker is required, but a beginner has a lot of "tells". It can be an effective tactic to convince your opponent to take a longer range shot and then turn off while you, in the Fed, actually are playing "phaser boat".
2. Speed Plots:
Are players choosing speed plots based on their Turn Mode brackets? Sounds like a stupid question but I'm trying to go as fast as I can but I get the impression that the better players are choosing a notch or two lower on the speedometer so that they stay in a better turn mode. Is this something that players consider when plotting speed?
Good observation. If you plot 1 or 2 moves under your turn mode you can use reserve power to accelerate to move an extra impulse (say to move during an impulse you normally wouldn't) without going up a turn mode. If not needed, it saves power.
3. Emergency Decel:
Holy smokes this is painful. Is this ever a Plan A option? Is it a desperation move?
An expert rarely might tractor an opponent and then ED so seeking weapons which otherwise would not have hit prior to the end of the turn hit.
I can't ever think of a non-contrived circumstance where ED would intentionally be used for the reinforcement. The reinforcement is a booby prize.
ED may seem like a convenient way to launch a WW without planning. Contrary to some advice to beginners, proper use of WWs is absolutely necessary for high level play. It is ED that kills you, not the WW. Better ways to drop the weasel:
a)time so seeker impact at the very beginning of the turn;plot 0/10 or 4/14. If it is not known how many weasels or how long you must be slow, then plan to use reserve to accelerate.
b)use the wall to stop
c)hold 4 pts of reserve warp and one pt of reserve impulse. If you must stop (wall or ED, you can TAC or accelerate). Putting 1 pt into a contingent HET can facilitate the impulse reserve.
d)Do not delay announcing ED past impulse 9 if it is obvious that stopping is required in the future. You can accelerate on 28 if you announce on 9.
d)go fast and outrun the seekers
4. Fighting Plasma:
The plasma ship is trying to grind your shields down by dribbling plasmas at you while not giving you a definitive shot back. This is called the "Plasma Ballet". The Fed can have a difficult time breaking the ballet. As you mentioned before, not holding photons can actually give you more speed to both outrun the plasmas and then engage the BP ship during the narrow window where he is weak on plasma.
Another thing about speed vs turn mode:
Sometimes you might want to plot just over your turn mode, especially if the opponent has the same turn mode and is likely to be plotting on the turn mode. For example, in a Fed v Gorn, both TM D, if you expect him to go 17 you might go 18. Going faster means you get movement priority, and that can often be more valuable than turning more tightly. And conversely, it often isn't.
In any case, learn to use speed changes. And don't go faster than HET speed (26 in an undamaged CC) without good reason.
Sebastian!!
Just because its functionally simple to fly doesn't necessarily mean it's for beginners. The Fed has flaws and several bad matchups that make it downright devilish to win with consistently. It's fine to learn the rules with but you might want to choose something a little more rewarding and a little more forgiving. Like a BB Shark. Just for instance
As was touched on earlier by Dave, standards don't improve the to-hit for photons. You're still firing at R8 or closer, Sure the extra power that holding standards is great, but the crunch power of the photon is the only trick the fed has. You have to use it. Use at least the 8 points you get at the start and overload with reserve warp if an opportunity presents itself.
Against plasma I usually hold 2 overloads(4 points), hold another standard and partially overload it (3 or 4 more) and hold a standard (1 more) for a total of 8 or 9 points. This leaves 25/26 points for move and weasels(hold 2).
Firing at R8 with overloads is fine if:
It is the very end of a turn(IE Impulse 32, I will let you think about why WHEN is important) and you have a goodly amount of board to run. Especially if the shot is on a rear shield.
Against plasma, particularly cloaking Roms, it is a very challenging fight and R8 is about the best you can hope for.
I second Andy's concept that the Fed is not for beginners. It really is hard to win consistently with.
As mentioned, the WBS (B-rack, B-rack) is a good choice, so is the Kzinti, and the WAX (Hellbore, Disruptor, Ph-G, B-rack). All of them feature drones and disruptors; some of the easiest weapons to use. And they have excellent phaser suites (in their own ways).
Thanks to all for taking the time to reply...both here and on line. These are all good points and I'll think about them carefully. Of course, the idea of not using the Fed bonus overload energy is a moot point as somebody made me promise to never try that.
"Just because its functionally simple to fly doesn't necessarily mean it's for beginners."
Hmm. Good point, thank you Andy, and Mat. One thing that surprises me over and over again with this game is that the different ships are so, well, different: a different design demands a different approach to the entire game.
ah well. So much to learn...
Sebastian,
1) I'd put forward that in part, the threat of the 64 point burst is more important than actually having it. I'll run away from a Fed I believe to be holding overloads, if he is or not is irrelevant. Show me you're not and I might come in. You can occasionally trick an opponent with this with speed changes to let you get closer than he'd like.
2) I often toggle between the top of a bracket and 1 below that, that way, you can actually get movement above your turn mode, while still maintaining it. I don't always do this and I avoid it against people I'm anticipating are going to speed up on me (so I can follow with my own).
Sebastian,
3) Pertaining to ED, I should share a cautionary tale, while ED does oft come before a fall, Ken Rotar just knocked me out of the RAT by doing one. I was flying Zin and had a 6 stack and a 4 stack of drones coming at him. when he EDed. He dropped a 40 point enveloper, an F I was about R7 from him. I did what he didn't expect and turned into the plasma. I could take both without downing a shield, and I'd be R2 with overloads and full phasers on a spine off his #4 ... as I closed I dribbled out a couple of drones to take what pitiful fire he could muster out his bum. Just as I was taking my shot, he dropped a second weasel and avoided most of the damage. I was left a wreck in space from what ensued and he took nearly no damage (all the disruptors missed and phaser damage was halved). An ED can save your bum, just be prepared to have an evac. plan if you're going to pull one. Ken needed 2 weasels and 4 TACs (including a plotted reserve impulse to give him the added tac) to come out on top, but he ended up creaming me with the maneuver.
Thanks for the comment on photons. It puts me in mind of what the great chess player Aaron Nimzowitch (sp) had to say: the threat of the move has greater effect than the execution of the move--my paraphrase. It's also interesting to think about how this would work (or wouldn't work) in Fed Com. Of course, the weapon status is open information in that game so using standard weapons would be, well, just using standard weapons. I read somewhere that SFB was more like poker than chess and I can see how that would be true in this case.
I happened to see that game between you and Ken. It was well played by both sides and there was a lot for me to think about. I had to smile at the irony when Ken Emergency Decelerated. A couple of days earlier I lost a game to Ken and one of the problems I had was a poorly executed ED. During the post-mortem Ken warned me about how costly the maneuver can be and how the move needs to be well-considered. I guess there's nothing inherently wrong with an ED it just requires planning and good sense of timing.
Thanks for the input Michael.
I do like how the players in SFBOL do try and help the newbies to the game. Sharing tactics and insights with everyone.