Last week I posted the following, as part of another discussion, in the Battle Forces for Captain's Log topic.

---

Quote:

I regret that I sound like I'm beating a dead horse, but I've believed for a long time that the "cost" to buy web - .25 BPV per strength point, isn't high enough in a late war scenario. The issue is this; in Y160 and again in Y175 the energy cost to maintain web decreases. (The cost to lay web remains the same but that is irrelevant for globular webs that are already laid at the start of the scenario). The reduced energy cost to mainitain the web means that in practical terms, the Tholian defense becomes stronger in Y160 and again in Y175 because the ships have more power to spend for other purposes. But there is no BPV adjustment to reflect this. Years ago I suggested that when the Y160 improvement goes into effect, the BPV cost for pre-existing web be increased from .25 per strength point to .4. And when the Y175 web improvement goes into effect the BPV cost should be raised again, to .5 BPV per web strength point. But nothing ever came of the suggestion.

---

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 04:42 am: Edit

I heartily endorse and support this product.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 06:11 pm: Edit

OK, doing quick math, with a standard wedding cake (R1=6 + R3=18 + R5=30, total 54) takes 54 power to maintain pre-Y160, 36 power Y160-Y175, and 27 power post Y175.

The balance factor comes to 742.5 (pre-Y160), 756 (Y160-174), and 945 (post-Y175) for a full 35 strength web for all three rings (plus 12 possible asteroid/web anchor costs)...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Stewart,

For the power requirements the more relevant numbers are 48 (pre-Y160), 32 (Y160-Y175), and 24 (post-Y175). Why? Those are the power requirements to maintain the middle and outer rings, the innermost ring being maintained by the base itself. Later (maybe tonight or maybe not until tomorrow) I'll post a concrete example of what those numbers mean in practice and why the reduced power cost strengthens the defense so significantly (and therefore, in my opinion, should be compensated for by higher BPV cost to set up the wedding cake).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, October 18, 2017 - 06:33 pm: Edit

By the way, the pre-Y160 cost is 472.5 BPV. I assume your 742.5 is simply a typo transposing the first two digits.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, October 19, 2017 - 05:21 pm: Edit

Goes to show that one can still miss a typo...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, October 20, 2017 - 11:51 am: Edit

"Later (maybe tonight or maybe not until tomorrow)" actually turned out to mean Friday...

But here's a concrete example that I hope will show why the reduced web maintenance cost in later years makes the defense so much more formidable. I'm going to look at a very basic Tholian wedding cake defense; a Base Station and 3 Patrol Corvettes; pre-Y160, Y160-Y175, and post Y175.

Now, as I noted in my Wednesday response to Stewart, with the base itself maintaining the innermost ring, the Tholian ships will need to supply 48 power to maintain the middle and outer rings (pre-Y162). But once the Y160 improvement goes into effect, the ships need only supply 32 power. My 3 Patrol Corvettes only generate 42 power total. So pre-Y160, it is actually impossible from a power standpoint to maintain a three-tier wedding cake. I must use a two-tier cake instead. After Y160 I can, with exactly the same forces, support a full three-tier defense. So it's not just that the PCs fight better because they have more power (effectively). The reduced web cost enables me to use a tactic that I could not use pre-Y160. As a practical matter, I might use a two-tier defense anyway in the Y160-Y175 case. There are several considerations that I won't go into now but might in a later post. But the choice is mine post-Y160. Pre-Y160 I don't have a choice. I have to fight a two-tier defense.

Now let's look at that two-tier defense. Maintaining the middle web ring costs 18 points pre-Y160. A PC generates 14. So once the Klingons (or any attacker without "special" technology) kills two of my three ships, the middle web is coming down. The best the PC can do is slow the rate of decay. It can't stop it. But post-Y160, maintaining the middle ring costs 12 points. I can do that with a single PC and still have power for life support and full shields. I won't be firing my phasers much, but the "killer" for the Tholian defenders is the Base Station with its phaser-4s. Phaser-1s from the PCs supplement that but their main role is keeping the outer webs up so the Klingons can't get to the Base Station. Assuming I haven't mis-played the defense, I will get at least one extra turn of phaser-4 fire before the attacker even gets a shot at the base. And that phaser-4 fire will be at range-3. A Tholian BS has a total of 7 phaser-4s and (assuming no EW shift), will inflict in the vicinity of 130 points more damage prior to the attacker getting a shot at the base - compared to the pre-Y160 case.

More later.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, October 23, 2017 - 10:42 am: Edit

The reduction in web maintenance costs in Y175 is less dramatic than the one in Y160. In Y160 the power cost for maintaining the outer two webs is reduced by 16, while Y175 the cost is reduced by a further 8 points. Still, the extra 8 points (split among several defenders) does improve the ability of the defending ships to resist the attackers. But there is another effect beyond simply giving the ships more power to play with that strengthens the defense.

One effective (provided certain conditions can be met) tactic for the Tholians is to run their ships in a circle in the open ring of hexes between the inner and middle rings, then dart out to reinforce the outer ring and dive back behind the middle ring before an enemy can achieve a clear line of fire. One obvious condition necessary to employ this tactic is that the defending ships in aggregate have enough power available to both reinforce the web and move at an appreciable speed. But the reduction in web maintenance costs helps in another way as well.

A Tholian ship with web device (generator, snare, or caster) can reinforce web with a maximum of 4 points of energy per impulse. It doesn't matter how many web generators (or casters) the ship has. It doesn't matter whether it is a POL or a CCX. Four points per ship per impulse is the limit.

Pre-Y160, the outer ring requires 30 points to completely counter degradation. Assume two Tholian ships (they would have to be something bigger than PCs) adopt the tactic described above. They run out from behind the middle ring, each reinforce the outer ring with 15 power, then dive back behind the middle ring. Each ship would need to remain adjacent to the outer ring for 4 impulses. Now assume the same situation, Y160-Y175. One ship could remain adjacent to the outer ring for 3 impulses, the other for only two. They will be back behind the protective middle ring sooner, making it harder for the attackers to dive into the web in time to catch them. Post Y175, each ship only spends two impulses adjacent to the outer ring. So independently of the reduced power, the shorter time the reinforcing ships need to spend in a vulnerable position makes it harder for the attackers to counter this tactic.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, October 23, 2017 - 10:55 am: Edit

It might be asked how I know whether my proposed BPV costs for web strength in Y160-Y175 and post-Y170 are "correct". I can only answer that by saying they are almost certainly not correct for every possible BPV level. In my experience, Tholian wedding cake defenses "scale" in wierd ways and there are probably some scenarios for which the proposed values are too high, others for which they may still be too low. But again, based on my experience and supported by comments I have read from other players, the current values are too low, especially for late war scenarios. I believe my proposed change is, at least, "less incorrect" than the current rule which maintains the same BPV cost for all periods.

The propsed values may be too high against Andromedans. With their DisDevs and ability to move ships by transporter, they attack a web in a completely different way than other powers, even the Seltorians. But it is pefectly legal under G10.8 to buy a weaker web to save BPV for some other purchase. Against most opponents, the weaker web is, at least potentially, a vulnerability. Against the Andromedans it is less of one, and means the high BPV costs won't penalize the Tholians as much since they are buying fewer web strength points.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, October 23, 2017 - 11:02 am: Edit

Oops. Tholian wedding cake defenses scale in "weird" ways, not "wierd" ways.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Monday, October 23, 2017 - 06:37 pm: Edit

Well a very good break down there for sure. The hardest part of balancing BPV however is the skill of the players. Then there is who is attacking the web. A federation CA crashing the web can blow up are cripple the ship it catches going in. A klingon D7 will cripple are damage a ship. Both depending on the size of ship the fire at. Now Maulers are also a game changer attacking web as is a SFG ship. your point change will what remove one small are perhaps large ship from a Tholian force? Yes one ship can make a big difference in the battle.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Monday, October 23, 2017 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Would it change some scenario outcomes, say an historical scenario, that the Tholians historically won, to an increased chance of the Tholians losing in the scenario.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 06:45 am: Edit

Better solution in my ever so humble opinion would probably be to remove the web upgrades entirely.

*ducks and runs*

By Mike Strain (Evilmike) on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Sounds legit to me. Simplifies the game and why did they manage to improve it here when back in The Old Country where they had web forever it stayed at its original costs?

Then you add in web/snare casters and it gets 10 times worse.....

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Wayne Douglas Power,

It shouldn't change any historical scenario outcomes. Note that my proposed change does not change actual gameplay once a scenario starts. What it changes is the BPV calculation for how much it costs to buy a Tholian force that has web already on the board at scenario-start. It is mostly applicable to Patrol Scenarios where the players buy their forces to some BPV level.

Mike Strain,

Well, no, actually. When the Tholians fled their home galaxy they lost technology, one of the effects of which was to increase web reinforcement energy costs. (Presumably they could still produce/ maintain web generators in this galaxy - but they weren't as efficient as the ones they produced in their home galaxy.) The Y175 improvement actually restored the efficiency they had already achieved prior to the Seltorian... unpleasantness.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 01:30 am: Edit

Yeah, the double strength web is the original strength. Difficult to see how they lost it though. They had a police corvette shipyard and presumably what they needed to build web generators.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, October 25, 2017 - 10:00 am: Edit

Jon,

My conjecture (no ADB-approved information to support this) is that it may have been a "quality control" issue. We know that by the time the Dyson sphere settled into its final location it had sustained major damage. Because of this they had to resort to cruder manufacturing methods for some components, the web generators being particularly effected. So they were producing web generators in this galaxy, but of a lower quality, until the Tholians were eventually able to restore the facility to full capability. What about the web generators on the ships that had come from M81? Their web generators were badly worn by the time they arrived here and had to be repaired with newly manufactured (and less efficient) components.

All speculation - as I said. But it does provide, I think, an explanation consistent with the published history.