Dal Downing:

(S3.25) SHUTTLES: ". . . Fighters cannot be replaced, and special shuttles . . ."

Even though it is Y185, the carriers were not operating without escorts, otherwise the Andromedan War would have been very different. You can make a case that the C7S might have replaced some of its PFs with specialist ones for a mission (but would it not be simpler to add specialist PFs to the escort ships?). A C7S is just not something you would risk this way (unescorted), if you were sending it and had no escorts available, you would assign non-aegis escorts to protect it. (Same would apply to the Kzintis.) It is extremely unlikely that two carrier groups would be sent against each other, neither with any escorts. (When I thought the Decimation was not a carrier, having some limits on the Rapier was possible . . . but both carriers being unescorted? Extremely doubtful.)

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 08:59 pm: Edit

Random thought:

At various places in the SFB cannon, it is stated that large ships have slightly greater strategic speed than otherwise equal small ships. Would the Rapier and Decimation be slightly faster than their escorts? If so, it might be possible to set a scenario primarily involving the two ships and their carried attrition units. What would be required is some sort of time-critical event to which both the Kzinti and Klingons must respond.

What about the following outline?

A Klingon X-Cruiser returning from a deep raid in Kzinti space suffers a catastrophic warp engine failure. The breakdown happens in the "no-man's land" of the front, with the Rapier and Decimator carrier groups nearest to, and almost equidistant from, the now crippled Klingon ship. Both the Klingon and Kzinti theater commanders issue "don't spare the horses" orders to the respective carrier group commanders in order to take advantage of (Kzinti) or rescue (Klingon) the situation. The Kzinti have a very limited time to make good on the chance to destroy a key Klingon unit, since additional Klingon reinforcements are closer than additional Kzinti forces. The Decimator just needs to hold long enough for those additional forces, including a tug, to arrive and tow away the DX. To deal with the BPV balance issue, assume that the Decimator was actively involved in a raid on some target or another at the time it was diverted to rescue the DX. Some or all of its PFs had not yet returned when the Decimator was called away on its rescue mission. For this to work, the DX would need to be a very slow target, with almost no offensive potential. Perhaps it starts with all warp engine boxes except for those in the boom marked as destroyed?

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 09:14 pm: Edit

So what if the convoy has a couple of prison ships carrying captured Klingon ground troops that were trapped when the front line passed them and now the Kzintis are hauling them back to the Marquis/Baronany SB. Lets say 15-20+ BPs worth.

Of course the Klingons want to retrieve them before the ceasefire takes affect and they now have to bargin for them.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, November 24, 2012 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Hmmm, Jason, that may be workable but what keeps the Rapier there when the reinforcements show up?

The only way I can see (offhand) is for the Rapier to have 'Hold at all Costs' orders (given personally!) by a Court member.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 07:44 am: Edit

SPP, here's an idea to work with the Kzinti weightlifting team rule. The Kzintis are at lower weapon status than the Klingons. Because of the reported progress of the ceasefire the Rapier doesn't believe a raid or attack is expected as they escort the convoy. The Klingons wanting to improve their negotiating position are at Weapon Status III to start the scenario.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 11:24 am: Edit

Stewart:

The idea is that the approaching Klingon reinforcements would be represented by a disengagement time requirement, rather than as actual forces. i.e. If the Rapier does not disengage by the end of turn N, it is considered destroyed. Victory would be based on the fate of the ships involved, with points heavily weighted towards the DX. The attrition units would not matter for victory purposes. Perhaps have the Klingons score points as follows:

DX survives uncrippled +10
DX survives crippled 0
DX is destroyed -10
(crippled for the DX needs to be defined such that the pre-destroyed warp boxes are not included in any calculations)

C7S survives uncrippled +5
C7S survives crippled 0
C7S destroyed -5

CVS survives uncrippled 0
CVS survives crippled +3
CVS destroyed +9
CVS captured +15

Victory level depends on total points scored, with a draw at 5 points (Kzinti cripple the DX and escape uncrippled) If the CVS exchanges itself for the DX, the Kzinti win a minor victory (4 points).

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 12:55 pm: Edit

On 2nd thought, the above victory points don't quite work: there isn't enough incentive for players to preserve the CVS or the C7S. The general idea is that the Klingons should not be able to get more than a minor victory if the DX dies, and the Kzinti should not be able to get better than a draw unless the DX dies. So, instead, how about the following points:

DX: uncrippled = +10; crippled = 0, dead = -10; captured = impossible (can't disengage)

C7S: uncrippled = 0; crippled = -5; dead = -10; captured = -25

CVS: uncrippled = 0; crippled = +4; dead = +12; captured = +25

Which gives:

both DX and CVS die = +2
DX crippled and CVS OK = 0

That suggests that a draw should be from -1 to +1 final score with the above point distribution. Other possibilities:

DX and CVS both crippled = +4: minor Klingon victory
DX dead and CVS crippled = -6: Kzinti victory
DX dead and CVS OK = -10: major Kzinti victory
DX and CVS both OK = +10: major Klingon victory
DX crippled and CVS dies = +12: decisive Klingon victory

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Jason,

---

Quote:

At various places in the SFB cannon, it is stated that large ships have slightly greater strategic speed than otherwise equal small ships

---

By Jim Davies (Mudfoot) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 09:40 pm: Edit

As stated above, the DX scenario doesn't fit the history. The C7 was on a raid, rather than a rescue. Now if it's a Kzinti X-ship it might work, but it still suffers the problem that the C7S can attack that and the Rapier survives, as noted for numerous other proposals.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, November 26, 2012 - 05:00 am: Edit

What source did you find that indicates the C7S was on a raid when it destroyed the Rapier? Neither the CL22 history of the C7 class nor the CL26 history of the Kzinti fleet carriers gives any indication as to the situation in which the battle leading to Rapier's destruction took place. SPP's 11/14 statement was, AFAICT a possible scenario for the Rapier-Decimation battle, not a fiat statement of SFU historical fact.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, November 26, 2012 - 10:15 am: Edit

I've been following this discussion only intermittently, so if something like this has already been suggested and rejected, I apologize for missing it.

The C7S has launched its fighters and PFs on a long range strike, so the Klingon forces (at start) consist only of the Decimation itself and its escorts. The Rapier carrier group attacks, since without the Decimation's fighters and PFs the Kzinti have the edge. The Kzinti presses the attack because Rapier's captain has received bad information due to "fog of war". He believes the strike group was cut up much more severely than was actually the case. The Klingon captain is in direct communication with the commander of the strike group and knows most of it survived, though some are damaged and all are short of drones. The Klingons won't retreat because doing so would condemn the fighter and PF crews to death and the Klingon captain believes he can hold out long enough for the returning survivors of the long range strike to turn the tide. The Rapier group was winning the battle until the returning strike group arrived in greater strength than the Kzinti had been led to believe, but by that time the Rapier was too heavily engaged to easily disengage.

Victory Conditions - The Kzinti wins a decisive victory by killing Decimation and having Rapier survive. If Decimation survives and Rapier disengages uncrippled, Kzinti win a minor victory. Rapier disengages crippled, or both major warships (not escorts) destroyed would constitute a draw. (Alternately, decide this case based on "point value" of damage inflicted, including to escorts and attrition units.) Decimation survives and Rapier killed - Klingon victory.

Special scenario rules - Kzinti cannot disengage until strike group survivors return. Kzinti automatically loses if he doesn't inflict a certain minimum amount of damage on Decimation. (The latter rule prevents the Kzinti from stalling for time (since the player, unlike the Kzinti captain, knows the strike group is still in pretty good shape) and then disengaging immediately when the strike group does arrive. It forces the Kzinti to press the attack.) Balance factors would include number of turns until the strike group returns, and just how badly cut up (and short of drones) they are.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 26, 2012 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Jim Davies:

The C7 being on a raid was part of my original proposed write up before it was discovered that the C7 was a C7S. There is nothing in the background as published (the snippets about the historical action between the Decimation and the Rapier) that says either ship was on a raid, which is why I redirected the general conversation to being about a "group a group" engagement since both ships are the centerpieces of groups (being ships that operated with formal escorts).

At this juncture, either might have been on a raid. Or something occured that resulted in the two ships meeting while they were on patrol in the "no-being's land" between the two empires.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 26, 2012 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Jason E. Schaff:

You might try creating such a scenario. Even if not used for the duel between the Decimation and the Rapier, it might stand in its own right. The problem is going to be balancing the DX. Without sufficient power to move it will also lack the power to throw off a tractor link, which will make it a relatively simple target to anchor and swarm with drones, a Kzinti speciallity. You have effectively limited the Kzinti victory to killing it and leaving, which will make it difficult for the Decimation as you are defining it to stop it from doing so. If you set up the Decimation between the DX and the Rapier, and allow the Rapier enough combat power to believe it can fight past the Decimation and get to the DX, you have probably created a scenario where the reverse of the historical outcome occurs, i.e., the Rapier destroys both Decimation and the DX.

You might consider reversing the roles and having the Rapier interpose itself between a Kzinti BCX and the Decimation.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 26, 2012 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Scott Tenhoff:

You cannot be bothered to read the topic?

Jim Davies raised the concept of a convoy of prisoners back on the 19th and I responded to it on the 20th.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 26, 2012 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Thomas Mathews:

Again, why would the Kzinti stick around under such a handicap? Any player worth his dice would recognize that the number of game turns it would take to arm the fighters at all means his best chance is to just run and disengage. I did discuss this, pointing out that if you gave the Kzinti running room you would have a boring first few turns where EAFs would be pretty much "run at maximum speed" until the Kzinti armed enough fighters to fight, ran out of room to run, or disengaged. If you stick him at a low weapon status and force him to fight, then he may as well ignore arming the fighters at all because the Klingon will start chain reactions in the bay before he can get enough drones on the fighters to matter.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, November 26, 2012 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Try writing up the scenario.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - 10:03 am: Edit

SPP:

Regrettably, I don't have time right now to do a complete scenario write up. I might be able to find the time to flesh out my previous suggestion in more detail (though still falling short of being complete), but not until the weekend. Would this still be useful to you?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

Sure.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, December 05, 2012 - 09:41 am: Edit

SPP,

Well, I've got a start on the scenario, but not as far as I had hoped. I'm still having difficulty finding time to work much on it, given some other things going on right now. What's the drop-dead date when you need it (as much as I will have been able to complete, anyway) by?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, December 05, 2012 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:

I know that what you have chosen is tricky to balance. You have to give the Kzinti a chance to win, or he will not engage at all. But if you give him too good a chance to win, the Klingon may as well not play.

Just let me know when you are done.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - 11:59 am: Edit

(SP49-8.0) THIS SPACE IS OURS

(Y185) by Alan Trevor, State

In Y185 negotiations were underway to establish a cease-fire of the General War. Virtually all of the empires in the Alpha octant were nearing exhaustion. The Coalition were willing to fight on if only to hold on to what they had (they knew victory was no longer possible). The Alliance, however, was looking for a way to end the fighting even if it meant accepting a draw rather than victory. It was more than probable that if the Alliance continued to attack the Coalition would be defeated. The expenditure of resources and lives needed to attain that goal, even if the probable outcome would be long term peace rather than a future resumption of hostilities, was no longer politically feasible. The political leaders of the Alliance’s democracies faced probable loss of political power if the war continued, as their populations were becoming increasingly unhappy with the burdens of the conflict.
Ultimately, for the Alliance, this meant the two great democracies, The United Federation of Planets and the Confederation of the Gorn, were no longer willing to bear the war’s cost. The Confederation (perhaps the nation least damaged by the General War) was also concerned with the burgeoning presence, and unknown intentions, of the new empire on its eastern border: The Inter-Stellar Concordium.
The Kzinti Hegemony’s leadership was not in favor of ending hostilities on terms of less than total victory. Unlike the Federation and the Confederation, the Hegemony was not a democracy, and as long as its leaders remained in power they could direct their population to war. The Hegemony had been ravaged by the war, much of its territory having been overrun and occupied by the Coalition during the first decade of the war, and its core worlds subjected to Coalition assault, inflicting immense economic damage. The Hegemony believed the Federation and Confederation could prop them up until complete victory was achieved. The Kzinti Patriarch (actually, the Crown Prince, who was politically weak and had not been elevated to the Patriarchal title) wanted to visit on the Klingons the pain of occupation and on the Lyrans the cleansing scourge of annihilation (and also thereby cement his place on the throne).
The Hegemony ordered its combat units to look for opportunities to engage Coalition forces in relatively low risk combat situations, which it would then blame on Coalition treachery, in hopes of triggering a resumption of the war.
The Coalition, on the other hand, had ordered its combat units to avoid large-scale confrontations, but not to be seen as unwilling to defend Coalition territory. The Coalition stance led to many confrontations with all the Alliance forces, but the Kzinti policy resulted in many more as the cease-fire talks proceeded.
With the signing of the negotiated cease-fire only a week away, the commodores of two carrier groups clashed on the Klingon-Kzinti front line. It began simply enough. The Kzintis sighted a Klingon fighter patrol and launched their own fighters to intercept it. There was nothing of value to fight for, except the bragging rights of saying who had driven the other off. Neither commodore was willing to allow the other side to make that claim, and both committed their groups piecemeal in hopes of avoiding a larger escalation.
The sad part was that if the Kzinti strike had been launched only a handful of minutes later than it was, the Klingons would have already withdrawn. A pair of G1Fs had just arrived to pick up the Klingon fighters when the Kzinti fighters were detected.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 08:57 am: Edit

In Nov 2012 SPP wrote:

---

Quote:

Thomas Mathews:

Again, why would the Kzinti stick around under such a handicap? Any player worth his dice would recognize that the number of game turns it would take to arm the fighters at all means his best chance is to just run and disengage. I did discuss this, pointing out that if you gave the Kzinti running room you would have a boring first few turns where EAFs would be pretty much "run at maximum speed" until the Kzinti armed enough fighters to fight, ran out of room to run, or disengaged. If you stick him at a low weapon status and force him to fight, then he may as well ignore arming the fighters at all because the Klingon will start chain reactions in the bay before he can get enough drones on the fighters to matter.

---

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 11:26 am: Edit

Thomas Mathews:

Been long enough that I am not sure (and going through the topic looking at your posts and mine does not clarify it) which variation you are referring to. By that I mean I am unsure if you are having the Rapier with its historical heavy fighters (so that it has six total and can arm them normally in the heavy fighter ready racks that it would have), or the one where it has a dozen TADSC fighters and thus has to use the Kzinti weightlifting team rule, further complicated by the fact that the ready racks are for a heavy fighter.

If the latter, having four fighters at start is not going to change much, as even though you would have four fighters, the 16 deck crews (assuming you bought the allowed four extra deck crews) would still require a minimum of 15 turns to fully arm the other eight fighters, launching them on Turn #16. Yes, they could be launched earlier with less than their full armaments, but given that it will take 1.5 turns for two deck crews to load just one type-I drone . . .

So it is kind of necessary to know which of the various proposals you are addressing.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 03:18 pm: Edit

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 14, 2012 - 06:14 pm: Edit

The above date time post is what I was originally referring to.

This is in reference to the Decimation vs Rapier.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Thomas Mathews:

Again, the discussion has gone on for a while and included such things as replacing all of the Rapier's heavy fighters with size-1 fighters. So I am unsure if you are referring to the Rapier with its normal complement of Size-2 fighters with four armed and two unarmed, or the concept that it was carrying a dozen size-1 fighters and had to use the Kzinti weight-lifting team rule.

In Y175 a Kzinti CVS(H) has a BPV of about 175 points with up to another 20 points for drones in its drone racks. (195 BPV)

A squadron of (for example) LKFs with mega-packs would have a BPV of 171 points, with up to another 72 points for drones. (243 BPV)

A MAC would have a BPV of about 112, plus up to 16 points for drones in its drone racks and 12 points for drones in its ready racks. (140 BPV).

A DWA would have a BPV of about 90, plus up to 16 points for drones in its drone racks and 12 points for drones in its ready racks. (118 BPV)

That Totals 696 BPV.

A Klingon C7S has a BPV of 202, plus up to 24 points for drones in its drone racks. (226 BPV).

6xZ-YCs with mega-packs has a BPV of 108 plus up to 48 BPV for drones. (156 BPV).

A Flotilla of G1 gunboats, including a leader and a scout, has a BPV of 302, plus up to 44 BPV for drones. (346 BPV).

That is 728 BPV WITHOUT THE ESCORTS.

An AD5 has a BPV of 120, plus up to 16 BPV for drones in the drone racks and 12 BPV for drones in the ready racks. (148 BPV).

An FWE has a BPV of 110, plus up to 12 BPV for drones in the drone racks and 12 BPV for drones in the ready racks. (134 BPV).

So the C7S group has a starting BPV of about 1,010 BPV versus the CVS(H) Group's 696, a difference of 314 BPV.

At that point for the two groups to start off anywhere near even you would have to either take a lot of things away from the Klingon group and come up with some explanation that makes sense (delete the entire PF flotilla, it is due to arrive some number of turns from now and the Kzintis are attacking while the Klingons cannot run because they are waiting for the PFs . . . been there done that, there are already similar scenarios), or beef up the Kzinti group. In the latter case you again get into "what are they fighting for?" that might cause either carrier group to commit to a fight and not simply disengage.

Generally, I am not going to attack a near equal opponent without some compelling reason to do so. The closer we are to equal, the more likely that even victory will leave my own group so crippled as to not be capable of further combat operations. And the war is almost over, cease fire negotiations are on going. Why are either of us risking our groups in a battle sure to see both of them crippled to no good purpose. What is the purpose of this fight?

If you have the whole C7S group, it makes a certain amount of sense to engage my CVS(H) group as you have a very significant firepower advantage (almost three-to-two in BPV). It makes no sense for me to stand and fight because of that advantage and every sensible move would involve my disengaging unless there is some really compelling reason for me to make a stand.

We both know the war is almost over and there is just no reason for us to risk a major clash. Our respective empires need to retain the combat power our groups express (especially the Kzintis since for almost half the war almost all on-map Kzinti space was occupied by the Coalition and the Kzinti core worlds were subject to Coalition assaults, so the Kzintis have suffered immense economic damage and losing a CVS(H) group without good cause would be poor leadership).