Archive through March 12, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: General Tactics Discussion:
Kzinti Tactics:
Archive through March 12, 2019
When push comes to shove, I'm in the same camp as Jeff: More is better. If I have COs afterward, I might do some fun things like swordfish or slug drones.
I generally want to overwhelm his drone defenses and do it for as long as I can. If I can keep him on the defensive, then I can knock out ships with my massed long-range disruptors or I can keep him focused on the drones while I close-and-hose. Either way He's playing my game, not the other way around.
Jeff Wile's Carrier group has a maximum (assuming the SF had its Y175 refit) drone throw-weight of 46 drones, plus six type-VI drones, in a single turn (Jeff's drone launch rate is flawed as an LKS can launch three drones a turn, it is not limited to two a turn, and can launch a type-VI in addition to the three drones; see the fighter description in Captain's Log #36). To this, assuming the timing went well, he could add drones from a maximum of six scatter-packs (two from the carrier) for up to another 36 drones (assuming the carrier did not put any type-VIs in the scatter-packs). Nominally that is 82 drones in one turn, but Jeff only has 72 control channels (assuming the scout is using one special sensor for this purpose). If he manages to get all 72 control channels filled on Turn #1 (not guaranteed due to the timing issues of the scatter-packs which are slow), he can count on launching drones to replace any destroyed by enemy defenses on Turn #2. This is the Kzinti drone launch ideal, full control channels to follow in and drone launchers ready to launch additional drones to overwhelm the defense after it has emptied weapons trying to stop the initial drones.
Tactically, Jeff's stated approach is semi-flawed (sorry Jeff) in that he speaks of using the LKSs as scatter-packs. Doing so reduces his total drone control channels to only 36 as an LKS scatter-pack has a drone control rating of Zero, and makes it difficult to time the releases of drones, plus each scatter-pack and fighter-pack requires its own control channel. All of this can result in drones lost simply because there are not enough channels to control drones released by the scatter-packs/fighter-packs.
Maneuver is further complicated in that both a fighter-pack and a scatter-pack are slower than ships (Speed 6 for the scatter-packs, Speed 12 for the fighter-packs), although the release time is better than for a piloted fighter (eight impulses after launch as opposed to 16 impulses after launch).
You are also dealing with medium speed drones, which makes out maneuvering the drones possible so that you only have to deal with a few at a time.
And that is part of planning drone defenses.
The Kzinti player (to abstract the issue from Jeff's group, though Jeff's group makes a nice example) could always run those fighters as remote control fighters (J15.0). It has the advantage of making those fighters able to launch a full drone load without removing those fighters' ability to control the drones. (Remote-controlled fighter rules (J15.0) has no provision that removes seeking weapon guidance (J4.25) from fighters)
While it would reduce his control channels slightly (J15.221) to run RC fighters, it wouldn't reduce them as much as if those were full-on fighter-packs (FD7.441). This is due to the 3-fighter-to-1-seeking-weapon-channel of (J15.221), whereas "Fighters-Packs" require a whole seeking-weapon-channel (FD7.32)
I think we should stick with Jeff's group as the tactic's discussion is from the battlegroup thread where Jeff showed a disinclination for adopting various options.
Richard, there is one aspect of my proposed battle group that limits just how much of our discussion relates to tactics inview of STar Fleet history. The DDV long lean is a unique unit, the Patriarchy only built one, and when it was lost in battle, it was not replaced. Plus, as noted back in the other topic, it never received any refits... so it gets stck with four type A racks, period. It also never got the year 175 refit.
One of the reasons I resisted adding type IV drones to the drone loadouts was because of a tight bpv limit, the sf and ddv had to make do with smaller total drones reloads related to the racks.
Had I started with a non carrier force, I would much more likely have included some type Iv drones as the presence of type B racks lessens the chance of running out of drones early and having nothing available to launch while reloading the racks is an easy way to get your ships damaged or destroyed.
I'm not opposed to having type IV drones, just saying that this particular kzinti battle force is better off without them.
SPP: I've not been following this very close but have a question. Could Jeff launch LKSs as scatter packs and once they release a ship takes guidance (as normal) but also beams a pilot on board the LKS which subsequently take back control of some drones? Once the drones are all controlled by LKSs the ship then could launch a second wave of drones with its now free control channels. (?)
[EDIT] I expect there would be a delay before a shuttle can take over drone control after beaming a pilot on board. I'm not sure what that would be but I suppose it would be the same as after launching (16 imp).
Loren, I think (FD7.44)'s last sentence covers that (until recovered and relaunched) plus (FD7.445) notes that what and when things are recovered...
SO what I'm thinking of is WW recovery maybe?
Loren,
Not to rain on your parade... much... but grabbing a expended scatter pack/LKS is onmly part of the challenge. As people have already noted, several of the ships in this force have very limited drone reloads available. They include the AFF, SF+ and (if you consider the drone racks only) the DDV. (Yes, I know about the 100 drone space stockpile... the LKS ftrs are drone hogs... two full strikes would require 72 x IM drones and 48 x type VIM dog fight drones. The stockpile starts with 75xIM and 50xVIM which leaves just 3xIM & 2xVIM... not enough to fill a single SP.
Plus the limit of loading 2 drone spaces per turn... reloading each SP will take three turns... assuming there are enough drones available.
Logically, the DDV is the best choice for reloading the SP... but the DDV is the only unit able to reload the LKS fighters.
Might be a challenge, but do able if the SPs blossom far enough away from the enemy, and the enemy doesn't realize how important the used shuttles are to the kzinti fire plan.
The problem is getting the enemy to do what we want them to do in the order we want them to do it in!
A plan of doing repeat drone launches seems to run contradictory to the choice of ships with limited reloads.
I thought the drones on the fighters and in the ready racks were in addition to the drones in the storage bay. Lots of drones on the DDV. It will take 4 turns to fully rearm each fighter. Add flight time and the final set reloaded fighters will be launched about turn 20, longer as fighters get killed off from ranged fire.
Richard raises an interesting point. The reload time for the LKS heavy fighters is much longer than for the older one space fighter (AAS or HAAS for example).
We could sustitute 12 admin shuttles for 6*LKS heavy fighters. That gives the kzinti (12*6equals 72 drone spaces of capacity compared 36*type I plus 24*type VI or a total of 48 drone spaces on board the Heavy fighters.
Of course the kzinti would only have a maximum of two scatter packs loaded at the start of the scenario... but if the DDV had bought the 4 extra deck crews, that would give them 16 total deck crews and the ability to load up to eight more SPs at the same time... sort of an adhoc arsenalship concept.
Hummm maybe I better not think about this too much. By not paying for the full flight of LKS ftrs we would save what 21 bpvs per fighter? Even better, what if we only bought two LKS? That means the stock pile percentages stays the same but we would only spend 17+(6*0.5)+(4*0.25)=21 per LKS.
Enough to almost buy another FF+... and if I did cave into type IV conventional wisdom, free up the points to get the Y175 refit for the SF.
Gahhh! Madness!
At that point we should junk the Sf altogether and upgrade to a DDS with 2b racks and 2C racks.
Atleast then we avoid the limited reloads paradox.
Jeff Wile:
Illegal. See (S8.31) and (S8.312).
As far as refits and type-IVs are concerned.
If you converted two type-IM drones in each type-B drone rack on your two FF+ frigates to type-IVMs that would give you a savings of two BPV. Enough to purchase the Y175 refit for the SF+.
The result is that each FF goes from having 20 type-IM drones in its racks and 40 type-IM drones in reloads to having 16 type-IM drones and two type-IVM drones in its racks, and 32 type-IM drones and four type-IVM drones in reload storage. A net loss of 12 drones (although not drone spaces) at that point.
Adding the Y175 refit to the SF+ changes its two type-A drone racks to type-C drone racks (no change in the number of drones initially loaded), but also adds four reload drones to each drone rack, i.e., changes the ship from having eight drones in the racks and eight drones in reload storage to eight drones in the racks and 16 drones in reload storage.
With the eight added drones the net loss in "drones" is four, but the net gain in "drone spaces" is eight.
Getting the drones out on the map is a problem of course, but while the 12 type-IVM drones take 24 points less damage to destroy, the eight added type-IM drones take 32 points of damage to destroy, and the net gain in potential warheads is 96 damage points (since the type-IVMs do the same damage as the type-IMs they replaced, the eight added type-IMs are all additional damage potential).
I see where SPP is coming from about drone defense and the use of labs, especially if one has limited labs for identification. However, one should always seek to identify drones even with a limited number of labs as (G4.231) states that type, target, and modules are revealed.
Jeff's battle force 550 uses type - I and VI exclusively, but as other have pointed out some mix of smaller explosive warheads and armor might be of value to confuse the enemy if the drone load out was not published for all to see. See (FD10.51). This mix could be done without changing the final cost. Thus is could be possible to create more confusion for Kzintis to take advantage of.
That is not say that Jeff's choice of all standard type - I and VI is wrong. But only to point out that it is possible to use those frames to create some additional confusion without changing the cost of a given drone.
Even I have a hard time with (FD10.0) and (S3.2) to keep within a certain limit of BPV.
edit: Please note that my comments are based on my Captain's Edition rulebook from (1991) and as such some things may have changed regarding drone construction costs that I am not versed in.
Thomas Mathews:
It is just a topic for discussion. I am perfectly content to let Jeff Wile choose his own drones to suit his own tactics. We all do things to our own style and do not necessarily agree with each other on what is the best doctrine. Each of us, however, is probably better playing to our own tunes than dancing to someone else's fiddle.
I typically like Jeff's take on the given battle force articles. His tactics are usually well thought out and effective. In this case I understand his decision to go with only type - 1 and VI drones. I do question his choice not to play with a few type - 1s that have 6 point explosions and some armor to make drone defense a little more difficult. Yes a T-bomb or wild weasel will make them useless, but then that is true of any explosive warhead drone that is in the hex of an exploding t-bomb or attracted to the ww.
I'm not sure if I have the all the SSDs and rules for Jeff's ships in question to come up with a drone mix that would allow for Jeff's proposed plan to overwhelm the enemy with mass drones but at the same time provide flexibility of making such drone defense harder.
I suspect that his reasoning is that such specialized drones would only be available on his carrier and that would alter the equation.
Somewhere, and I don't remember where, I thought I had read that it was possible for a carrier or drone ship to use transporters to transfer part of their drone storage to other ships in the battle force during the scenario. Maybe I misread that or it is a figment of my imagination too.
Thomas Mathews:
See (G25.3).
I will add (and not trying to put any words in Jeff's mouth, only making an observation) that while taking only standard type-I drones makes it easier on the defender (note, this is only a factor in a situation like battle groups where the drone load out is known to both sides in advance), it also makes things easier for the attacker.
The defender does not have to agonize over the expenditure of scarce drone identification attempts.
On the other hand, the attacker does not have to ask himself "should I launch a type-IV now, or wait until later? Should I include one of my armored drones in this drone wave? Should I reload this drone rack with a type-IV drone, or two type-I drones?"
In short, there is another side. Jeff only needs to think about how many drones he wants to launch, and how many control channels are currently controlling drones and whether or not he wants to drop tracking to a drone that is probably not going to catch up with the enemy or at least is not providing a barrier between him and the enemy in order to launch another drone.
So a player may choose all standard type-I drones simply because he does not have to do much thinking about which drones to launch (nothing here is meant as derogatory, we all have playing styles and should use what works best for us, as Kumerian has said, "the only valid test is combat, the only valid result is victory." If Jeff, or any other commander wins consistently with standard type-I drones, we should not gainsay them.
As no one else has pointed this out, let me add that while there are a lot of pluses to using remotely piloted shuttles over scatter-packs (like being able to maneuver them, choose when to launch their seeking weapons, and their ability to use their own seeking weapon control channels), they do have the standard disadvantage of a manned fighter, that is to say that while a scatter-pack can release its seeking weapons after eight impulses has passed since being launched, a remote-controlled shuttle has to wait 16 impulses, just like a manned shuttle, and given the slow speed (Speed 12), might no longer be in an optimal position to do so.
I see you probably missed my post also, SPP. I posted about RCFs four days ago. While you point out things I missed, I pointed out that the Kzinti would be able to maintain the Control channels offered by the fighters on their own drones and the fewer control channels needed by RCFs over SPs.
Matthew Potter:
I did not miss it. It was your part of the conversation. I merely noted it, in my last missive, as one of the things you gain (a positive) for using remote control to lend emphasis to the negative (the increase wait time before you can launch any seeking weapons from that fighter).
I've got a battle coming up and was hoping for some advice.
It's taking place in Y125.
I'm flying a Kzinti CS against a Klingon D6. My ship is rated at a higher BPV but I'm at a loss for how to approach the fight since I am short on both speed and long-range firepower.
Is an overrun/anchor my only path to victory?
You have greater firepower parity at close range with ph-3s. You should also be much faster only needing to charge a pair of disruptors. Try to use your drones to herd your opponent.
An overrun might win because the Klingon D6 of that time period has glass rear shields if you can avoid getting mauled by a lot of disruptors. ECM is your friend.
Trying for an Impulse 1 tractor auction where you fly in close is a risky but possibly winning move but even a tractored D6 might be able to outrun Speed 8 drones.
You might also wish to make use of type II and type V drones.
Also, while you have inferior disruptor firepower, you do have phaser ones backing yours up while he has to rely on phaser twoes, and while a phaser one isn't as powerful as a disruptor at range, it is more power efficient.
On the other hand, to make effective use of your direct fire capabilities, you're going to have to take him on almost exclusively on your #1 shield, which is weaker than his.
I would also expect him to Dance. If he does so, he'll not only spread your fire across multiple shields but he'll also remain at range and avoid a Kzinti Anchor.
Your best bet might be to go Kzintikaze on him; charge in and take his best shot. Even if he drops a shield on the way in, the lack of "Shock Effect" won't do enough to majorly cripple you, and you have system redundancy up the wazoo; your phaser threes can absorb the phaser hits on the DAC, you're not as disruptor reliant as he is, and you also have four drone racks; if you lose one, it's still not AS critical.
IIRC, he won't be guaranteed a kill, even at point blank range, with a phaser two against a type IV/type V drone, and two of those hitting him in a Kzinti Anchor is forty eight points of damage.
A scatter pack loaded with type I and/or II drones, if set to blossom just as you charge in might also tie up enough of his firepower to allow you to get yet another type IV (or V) to hit with your Kzinti Anchor.
Before you base your plan on these ideas, though, please remember that I've got one of the worst loss records out there... 
Daniel Eastland:
The D6 generates four more points of power than your ship does, but that just covers firing two more disruptors at standard levels.
Your phaser capacitors are identical in that either of you would need seven points of power to fully fill them if they were emptied.
Your forte is by definition to get close, and stay close, as your drones will not catch him if he runs, and he is more maneuverable than you are (B turn mode versus C turn mode).
The threat of your drones will cause him to avoid overruning you as he does not want to take (potentially) four type-IV drones in his face, so expect him to fire disruptors and turn away, allowing you to fire disruptors on his weaker flank and rear shields.
Remember that your two phaser-1s are about equal to three of his phaser-2s at most ranges, and if you can get to pointblank your paired phaser-3s are actually superior to individual phaser-2s.
Remember that he can only launch one (1) drone per turn, but can launch them over turn breaks such that he can get two in flight pretty close together. So it is a pretty close to a reversal of firepower (you have two disruptors to his two drone racks, but he can only launch one drone a turn and your disruptors can only fire at the same target on the centerline, but you have four drone racks to his four disruptors).
Remember that his rear shields are weak, and try to take advantage of that, but that other than your #1 shield, all of your shields are equal to (#2 and #6) or superior (#3, #4, and #5) to his, and drones can fire in any direction and you have good phase firepower (at close range) behind all of those shields, but do not forget that even though his rear shields are weak, the Klingon can get a lot of phaser-2s to bear through most of them, and all seven to his rear.
Remember that in addition to an edge in shield boxes, your ship has a more than 10% edge in internal damage it can sustain.
As the Klingon has more speed and more power, assuming a floating map, you never HAVE to let the Kzinti get close.
If the Kzinti goes zero and tacs, he can't go faster than ten next turn so fire overloads at range 8 (narrow salvo) or 4 next turn and dump all your phasers into him if you hit and see where that gets you (don't end turn in overload range). In such a case if you are feeling lucky, try for a range three pass and dump phasers twos for good effect, but be aware of tractor possibilities before you decide to do this.
If the Kzinti keeps his speed up, keep yours up too and just dance at range. You can spend a turn opening the range (use batteries and allocated power to reinforce a shield) until you get it where you like it.
If it's a fixed map it could get nasty for the Klingon. You may want a weasel.