On the other hand, one of the key advantages the Andromedans enjoyed in the Darwin's "dark future" timeline was the ability to get Devastator (and Devourer) production up and running in the LMC.

Once those ships entered service, the Invaders could use them as sledgehammers against the kind of larger targets which even a pair of Dominators might have balked at.

Plus, as shown in the Fall of Demorak campaign from C3A, the Andros could send waves of Motherships against a major or capital planet, with the aim of slowly grinding down the opposing defences.

The battle which the Echelon of Judgement fought to defend Korlivala (from Module X1R) was a similar example, as the first wave of motherships had already cleared away most of the planet's static defences. The ISC X-ships arrived in the interim between the first and second waves, just in time to save the Korlivilar home world.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Thursday, September 04, 2014 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Deleted at Norman's request, although we found the material interesting and worth reading.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, September 04, 2014 - 06:29 pm: Edit

In my opinion- Until the Andromedans get an F&E module a Strategic discussion is pointless. The Commander's Edition Andromedans were deemed broken as a 500 BPV fleet could crush a 1000 BPV Alpha Fleet. If a 500 BPV Captain's Edition Andromedan Fleet has no chance against a 500 BPV Alpha fleet then they still must be broken. How long has the Andromedan tournament ship been broken?

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Thursday, September 04, 2014 - 07:00 pm: Edit

I will also point out in a strategic sense you like to show up to a battle with five to one odds at least you don't send 500 BPV of ships to destroy 500 BPV of ships. You send 2500 BPV of ships to destroy 500.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 12:24 am: Edit

Hi Gary. I wanted to apologize to you for my post. You seemed upset on the Talkshoe and you took my post very personally.

I have the utmost respect for you, your knowledge, and your writing. You know more about the Star Fleet Universe than I could ever know. In fact, I learned much of what I know about Omega, the LMC, and the Andromedans from you. You have a talent for writing that far exceeds my own.

It was not my intention to attack you personally or tarnish your reputation. I was trying to support another point of view, which was based on Tabletop experience. I thought it would benefit others to show this other side, but now I see that was a mistake. I am very sorry for offending you.

We have a lot in common. We both love Omega. We both love the Andromedans. We both love the SFU and want to see ADB succeed. I think we are actually on the same side.

The SFB player base has grown smaller over the years. Internal squabbles don't help things at all.

I will contact Jean and SVC to see if they can delete my post from 9/4/14 at 5:55pm. If I could delete it myself, I would, but it's too late now.

You have my sincere apologies again. Your work in Captain's Log #49 was Magnificent in my opinion.

Norman

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 12:36 am: Edit

I sent an email to Jean and SVC to request deletion of my post in this thread on 9/4/14 at 5:55pm. I would have copied Gary, but there is no email listed under Gary's Profile.

I hope the request is approved. The post didn't generate anything positive.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 08:57 am: Edit

I saw nothing wrong with your post, Norman.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 09:48 am: Edit

There was nothing wrong with your post, Norman. It sums up a lot of key things about the Andromedan war and I hope it is not deleted.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 11:47 am: Edit

I deleted Norman's post because Norman asked me to, but I found it an interesting analysis.

When looking at some series of events over a period of decades with a lot of moving parts, a lot of things can and can't, did and didn't, happen.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 11:50 am: Edit

Dang it. I wanted to save Norms post but it got deleted before I could. I agree, it was a polite and insightful post worth having and in the spirit of good debate long established on this board.
I hope ADB saved a copy.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 12:36 pm: Edit

For what it's worth, I wouldn't have asked for Norman's reply to have been taken down, far from it.

I admit that I let it get to me more than it was intended, and that I vented about this on last night's Talkshoe discussion. But I was not angry at Norman for replying the way he did.

The person I was upset at was myself. (And on the week of my receiving my own copy of CL49, no less.) If my prior response in this thread was so poor as to draw such a well-annotated response, who would have any confidence in the material on this subject that I had written?

I failed to be as clear as I wanted to be when mentioning the difference that getting the battleships into service made for the "dark future" Andros which their counterparts in the standard timeline failed to get around to in time. (And why I'd argue that the "dark future" material is in any way valid to discuss here in the first place.)

In fact, I wanted to take the time to reply to Norman's post in more detail, but I feel that it's not fair to do so when it's been taken down already. I'd rather try and respond to it and fail once more in the attempt than have it swept under the rug and run away from the conversation.

So, if Norman is willing to do so, I'd hope he might consider posting the material again.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 01:01 pm: Edit

If you look in S8.0 an obvious advantage with Adromedan ships is the two mothership rule so the Andros can have 2 Dominators and 12 satellite ships versus an alpha fleet of one DN, nine ships and a scout plus granted many fighters and drones. If the dark future happens then they get 2 battleships and 14 satellite ships vs the same max alpha fleet.

Pure speculation but maybe the RTN movement will allow the Andromedan to concentrate ships when they attack but the Alpha ships will not be allowed to react as they do in F&E to defend a hex.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 01:11 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Pure speculation but maybe the RTN movement will allow the Andromedan to concentrate ships when they attack but the Alpha ships will not be allowed to react as they do in F&E to defend a hex.

---

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Paul mentioned on Talkshoe last night that maybe Andro fleets seem week in SFB. I will admit to having zero experience with Captain's Edition Anromedans. In Commander's Edition they were frightening and could easily and consistently trash double their BPV in a fleet action. That being said the tactics I used with them in the past I think (could be wrong) would work with them still. Paul mentioned t-Bombs. I know that the Captain's rule don't let you have as many t-Bombs and Explosions are smaller than in the old days. In Alpha VS. Alpha fleet battles I have played usually every turn the smallest ship is destroyed. Latter in the game bigger ships get cripple on one turn and explode the next turn. Andro don't always follow this plan. They use their superior speed and T-Bombs and displacemant devices and displace themsleves to break up the fleet or displace part of the fleet to single out and destroy key ships. Displace the carrier away from the escorts and it is an easier target. Displace a Dominator past the gunline and an Echelon is in trouble. Instant minefield with T-Bombs and Fighters and PFs are cut off. Maybe with degrading panels this doesn't work as well anymore but I fondly remember when the Alpha fleet would shoot a terminator then it would shoot, then the Andro fleet would shoot the Terminator and it would shoot again!

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Andromedans don't fare well against Alpha empires mostly because of their lack of seeking weapon defense and a lack of effective attrition units. At least that has been my experience.
In fleet battles, their 180 degree PA panel protection is more of a liability than anything, and they can be Mizia'd out of existence pretty easily. You don't have to do enough damage to blow away excess damage, you just have to do enough so they can't power their panels next turn and then they're done.
Burn the mothership, and the satellites pretty much are obliged to fight to the death.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Ok, a few things...

Norman's post was copied ot the file and may actually become the genesis of a snapshot article. I would suggest he post it again as I thought it made a serious contribution to the conversation.

It was good analysis, and pointed out things that were part of the history. The Andromedans never did assault a serious capital, but they probably would have if the Darwin had not brought back the RTN secret. It was that single fact, finding the RTN years earlier than they "did" that changed the dark future to the future of sweetness and light. Given later discovery of the RTN, the fleets would have been chewed up in small battles and the galactic economy brought to the point of collapse by wrecking colonies that provided resources.

It is absolutely correct that Andro technology is "so frakking weird" that the BPV system collapses above 500BPV. The Andros (sans battleships) simply cannot fight such battles, and they did not fight them very often.

The Andro stategy for an attack on a well-defended location was indeed to send "wave after wave" of ships, but they could not do this very often because they didn't have the ships they could afford to lose. They only did it two or three times, and in special cases. The LDR capital is really just a major planet, not a capital at all. Most of the ISC fleet was out of the way so attacks on the ISC homeworlds were a risky gamble but one that would have worked if the Andros understood what X-technology meant to the strategic arena.

Could the Andros (sans Battleships) attack and kill any capital they wanted to? No.

Could they pick off a vulnerable and valuable target here and there at some risk, yes.

They wanted the galactics to think they had the power to kill capitals at will, but it was one step away from a bluff. They probably would not have had more than two major assault fleets and after knocking over a capital or two would be cominging the remants into one such fleet that could survive only one or two attacks. So maybe the "sweetness and light" Andros could have killed 3 or 4 or even 5 or 6 capital planets (not capitals, but major planets in a capital hex) before just plain running out of ships. If they stripped the galaxy of Andros to feed the assalt fleets, you might add two or three more, but by the time you did those, the galactic economy would have rebounded as there were no raiders. And do remember that the Andros got greedy and tried to take over Alpha and Omega simultaneously. They might have abandoned one attack to feed ships into the other, and taken one sector before running out of ships, then waited a decade to build more shipyards and the more ships.

What nobody really realized is that the Andros were fighting a revolutionary guerilla war, not an invasion in the sense that one might have expected. The Andro way of war was cheaper and withing their capabilities. Once they actually captured something they could use it to build ships for a conventional expansion.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Sorry Gary, as much as I love your work, I have to disagree with your explanation. I agree with Matthew's Assessment, there is a bit of Disconnect between History and BPV.

I see several things wrong with your explanation. They are:

1) The Darwin's "dark future" timeline is an Alternate Timeline separate from the Historical Timeline. Yet you are quoting it as if it actually happened Historically. Because the Galactic Powers did indeed Historically discover the RTN earlier than in the "dark future" timeline, the Devastator (and Devourer) that you bring up could never have been used as "sledgehammers" against a Fleet of Galactic Powers.

2) The Fall of Demorak campaign was completed as a Show of Force, in order to install Fear in the Galactic Powers. The Secret behind it's success was the RTN, Not that the Andromedans had massive amounts of ships that could destroy Capitals with ease. That is only what they wanted the Galactic Powers to Think.

3) The Capital Planet that was conquered in the Fall of Demorak was not a small capital, but the Smallest Capital. So suggesting that, because the Fall of Demorak occurred, it was also possible to do the same to a major or capital planet, simply isn't true.

4) There were never many Andromedans Historically. So suggesting they could send "wave after wave of Motherships" isn't necessarily accurate. At some point, these "waves" will run out, especially against a Large Fleet of Galactic Powers or against a Large Capital.

5) The Key to the Success of the Darwin's "dark future" timeline was the Disruption of Logistics. This forced warships to escort conveys and provide security for colonies. Motherships would then destroy isolated warships. The Point here is that it was Not a single Devastator or pair of Dominators that destroyed a Large Fleet of Galactic Ships.

6) The Tabletop is a separate entity from History, yet the two should Match. If 500 BPV of Galactic Powers can defeat 500 BPV of Andromedans on the Tabletop, then there is a Discrepancy.

REFERENCES

1) This comes from Module C3A, Page 48, second column, 7th paragraph: "In the alternate timeline the secret of the Rapid Transit Network was not uncovered until Y200. By that time, the various star fleets had been ground down, and their logistics were severely disrupted."

2) This comes from Module C3A, Page 48, second column, 5th paragraph: "This appears to have been part of the reason for the overwhelming destruction of the Lyran Democratic Republic. It was a calculated move to instill greater fear into the political leadership of the various empires with the intent of driving them to continue making mistakes in deploying their militaries."

3) This comes from Module C3A, Page 2, second column, 8th paragraph: "The 'Fall of Demorak' campaign is large, and a siege, but it represents an attack on a capital planet by the Andromedans, albeit the Smallest Capital."

4) This comes from Module C2, Page 29, second column, 2nd paragraph: "Eventually it was discovered that there were not all that many Andromedan ships. The Andromedans had created a strategic transportation network (know as the Rapid Transport Network or RTN) of pre-surveyed routes along which their ships could move at warp 15, allowing them to concentrate their forces at key points.

This also comes from Module C3A, Page 48, second column, 4th paragraph: "The actual number of Andromedan ships was much smaller than intelligence estimates."

5) This comes from Module C3A, Page 48, first column, 6th paragraph: "Disruptions in shipping led to major warships being dispersed to provide escorts for convoys and security for colonies deemed vital for the resources they provided."

in combination with Module C3A, Page 48, second column, 2nd paragraph: "In the 'primary' timeline this changed when the Darwin returned, not because of the information from the alternate timeline, but because the Darwin revealed the secret of the Rapid Transit Network."

6) This comes from Years and Years of Playtesting and Player Feedback.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 02:23 pm: Edit

One side of the equation I hope to see eventually will be more of the Omega Octant's bases and support units, in order to help show what kind of assets they had on hand for the Andromedans over there to try and reduce.

The Iridani Cluster was quite poorly fortified prior to the assault in Y193 (since the locals did not expect to come under direct assault), but the kind of bases and fleet assets assigned there once the reconstruction efforts got seriously underway in the wake of the Grand Quest would have likely made a second Andromedan offensive there much more of a challenge.

By Y201, the Andros had managed to knock off a couple of Hiver hives and one of the major Vari cells, but those factions have certain built-in size limits (no SC 2 ships) and logistical setups (no "primary" capital, due to each hive and cell having its own shipyard).

While a number of the major empire home worlds (Trobrin, Probr, Koligahr, and others) were attacked (yet successfully defended) in Y201 itself, it's not known what kind of starbases, "late-war" ships, or X-ships each would have had. But it is known that they are not a common set, the way bases tend to be over in Alpha: some are said to be tougher nuts to crack than others.

In each case, however, given how late the Omega empires were to field X-ships and PFs, they would have had far fewer of these types of units on hand in order to try and defend their respective capitals.


But then, we don't know yet what kind of assets the Andromedans' Omega theatre command had relative to those in other regions. How were the new fleet assets arriving via ITL divided up to serve on one front over another, at least prior to Operation Unity (when the immediate defence of the starbases became so critical)?

Or, indeed, if the Andros did drive the Echarri from Sigma (as the Echarri would later claim), did the Motherships driving that offensive come from the same ITL terminus in the LMC, or would it have had to have been launched from a different satellite galaxy for that to work?

There may come a point at which the Andros will simply need to have had alternate Desecrator locations around the Milky Way, so as not to overload their known operations as carried out via the LMC.

-----

Norman:

Thanks for re-posting your reply.

In terms of how well (or badly) the Andromedans handle larger fleet engagements, that is indeed part of the established history, as well as part of the game setup.

As noted in the secret history article in Module X1R, the post-Y195 Andromedans in the standard timeline were surrendering the advantage to the Alpha empires whenever they elected to stand and fight over an uncovered RTN node, since the largest force which the Andros could normally assemble at a single fixed point (a battle station or starbase, plus an Immobilator monitor, plus its complement of MWPs, plus two Dominators, plus their respective satellite ship loadouts) was not enough to withstand the combined force which could be assembled in order to destroy them.

The issue is exactly where the line is drawn beyond which Andro fleets cease being effective, and how that needle might be moved depending on the options available for the Andros at or in a given time(line).

In the "dark future" timeline (which effectively did happen - though it was undone, or at least branched off into another time stream, thorugh the Darwin's return), they were able to add two significant factors to this complex equation: the battleships in and of themselves, and the dissection beams which new mothership variants (most notably the fearsome Devourer) brought to the table.

The battleships provided a much more dangerous force which the Andros could use in an assault scenario simply through their size and firepower. While the DSBs were able to force the opposing empires to replace, rather than simply rebuild, lost parts of their ships, since you can't repair a warp nacelle that has been shorn off a ship outright. (And each Devourer has no less than four of them - enough to clip the nacelles off of two X-cruisers at once, if you're lucky enough with the dice).

But even then, as you say, there would likely not be a single, decisive "battle round" in which these more powerful Motherships would have prevailed. Rather, the cumulative effect of having them there (and the way in which their being there allowed more of the smaller Motherships to continue raiding and distraction missions away from the assault) would have gradually pushed the opposing forces further and further into the red.

The Darwin's return spared the peoples of the "standard" timeline from such a fate, but the "dark future" material is still relevant in my view, since it shows just how the end game would have looked like in Alpha had the key data on the RTN not been reported when it was.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Friday, September 05, 2014 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Ironically, I had norman's post ready to repost (not deliberately) because it was still on my computer screen from this morning. When I first read it, I actually thought it was very profoundly informative (for me, anyways) and I wanted to read it again when I wasn't rushed for work.

By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Saturday, September 06, 2014 - 01:30 pm: Edit

I'm a little behind on the current Andro history (no X1R, no recent CapLog) - but I've long wanted the Andromedans to have a device that could push a ship into the RTN without a Displacement Device. This way they could build larger, Mothership-sized, vessels without running into the DisDev feedback phenomenon.

Of course, the downside would be (handwaving, of course) that once the ship entered the RTN it couldn't get back INTO the RTN unless "pushed" by another unit.

So you can send a larger attack force, but if things go bad, those ships aren't coming home unless they are willing to be tracked to the closest RTN node.

OR you can push ships into the RTN to defend a node under attack, but if the node dies... so do these ships.

Seems like it would allow the Andros to field larger ships in a fight, but only useful in very specific circumstances.

By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Saturday, September 06, 2014 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I don't play SFB, FC is my game, and like to play andros. Whilst the in game tactics will probably differ, the discussion does seem to have become a bit more generic and less SFB specific, so I'll add my 2 penneth. Plus FC doesn't have such discussion, and it is quite interesting.

In FC I also find Andros struggle heavily in multi ship battles. Not so much some point value per se, but multi ship fights. That said they can still be quite tough if you play on a large enough map - ability to manouver and maintain range can make a huge difference for Andros - Time is the key Andro strength. Terrain is also important - I've played ~1400pts of Andros (Dom, Int and 12 Vip) against 2000+ points of galatics in a campaign and come off better due to fighting in asteroids. Also I'm not sure how Scouts work in SFB but in FC the Andros tend to benefit more than the galactics do from the presence of something like an Eel, and they will almost certainly be present at that size of battle. Range, terrain and scouts all reduce the damage that can be inflicted and that plays to the Andros strength.

It was said above that the tabletop should reflect history, and it doesn't because 500 pts of galactics always beat 500pts of Andros. But the fact that an equal 500 pts is a loss for Andros is not a discrepancy per se. The fiction and history behind the Andros doing well is due to strategic advantages that is in no way reflected in a 500pt tactical duel. With the massive edge in strategic movement that Andros enjoy they would hardly ever be forced into fights that they didn't want to fight, and could much more readily fight the battles they do want to fight. In war no one fights an 1:1 duel willingly if you can fight at an advantage instead. If you want to see the table top reflect that history then you have to play some strategic level game on the tabletop, and use SFB/FC for the resulting battles that you want to play. SFB/FC in themsleves are simply the wrong level of game to see what makes Andros a tough opponent at a strategic level.

Certainly one can argue that the tactical level game should have BPV provide a balanced game, but that still wouldn't reflect the strategic position in a fictional history of the entire quadrant, where the result of a war simply isn't decided by what happens in such a 'balanced' fight.


quote.
[This is because any point fortified with a couple 2 or three squadrons will likely be too strong for the Andromedans to manage. ]

I'm not up on my 'history' enough, but how many such points are there? From what you are saying a squadron is a 3 cruiser+ group. The equalivalent of 6-9 cruisers per point is a lot of cruisers to cover say the whole Federation - and that is static defense. What is covering the traffic between the points. Whilst the empires have just fought a major war or 2 and have large fleets on hand, are they that large, and can they sustain them after all those years of war economy already under the belt. Can each empire survive as it hides behind static defense and starves. Are such static squadrons really enough to beat off double dominator groups (or the bigger battleships)? If the 'point' is a starbase then probably, but what about commercial/industry/argicultural 'points' that are probably far more strategically important?

[ and a lack of effective attrition units.]

Rightly or wrongly I always treat Vipers as my attrition units. Cheap and packing a big punch for the points (for Andros). They go pop fast - but if they are going pop then your motherships are not. Certainly in campaign play I was happy to drop off 12+ vipers and hold back the mother ships safely, go and pick up more vipers if needed.

[Burn the mothership, and the satellites pretty much are obliged to fight to the death.]

Maybe differences in how SFB plays to FC, but if you are burning my motherships then it is likely that the satellites are already dead. Basic Andro tactic in big battles was to force the galactics to deal with satellites first, they dish out too much damage to be ignored whilst you chase motherships.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, September 06, 2014 - 03:12 pm: Edit

I still think it was a shame that the Devastator was not included as a double-sized Ship Card with FC: War and Peace. But I'm hoping that its turn (and that of the DSB variants) might come there someday.

But then, that in and of itself might lead to an interesting set of questions. Given how differently FC (or other games in which we may see the Andros appear sooner or later, such as Starmada or ACtA:SF) operates compared to SFB, could it be that the degree of advantage an Andro player might have in taking those larger "dark future" Motherships (should they become available there) may be either more or less pronounced than what might be expected here?

(Well, so far there are no X-ships in the three other game systems, so there's that - but then, both FC and Starmada are somewhat more generous in terms of permitting access to battleships for the Alpha Octant empires.)

By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Thursday, March 14, 2019 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Hey guys (and gals)...

So I'm playing in an F&E early years campaign, and the Lyran player got a random 'monster' roll of a CBR.

It's attacking in 2 linked scenarios, the first one against a lone WCA, and the 2nd against a pair of them.

The player is up for a challenge (and is somewhat overconfident) and wants to play them out in SFB. I'm happy to oblige, but I have *never* played an Andro in my life.

Can anyone here give me some pointers so I don't make a boneheaded mistake and hand him some (dubious) bragging rights?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 14, 2019 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Mike Dowd:

Seriously (as in a simple statement of fact), the CBR should easily destroy a single WCA. The Lyran WCA tops out at a maximum speed of 17 and can maintain that speed IF IT DOES NOTHING ELSE. That is to say at Speed 17 it can pay life support, and has two points of battery power available, but has no shields or fire control, much less disruptors. Arming anything (or raising the shields) means it is even slower.

So you are going to be faster.

His disruptors cannot be overloaded, and the two of them together are about equal to your one TRL, but of course they can fire faster.

Basically you control the battle, as he cannot catch you, your panels can take 40 damage points to the front, and 30 damage points from the rear, so he has to get close (like Range 1 on the centerline) to actually penetrate.

Your only real problem should be "leak" damage hitting something important (like the TRL).

Basically, dance in, hit a shield, dance away, take a look at the level of power in your panels and reduce it during the reload cycle of your TRL and repeat until the WCA is destroyed.

The pair of WCAs is more of a problem as their combined firepower is enough to punch your panels with four disruptors working on leaks.

Basically the same tactics apply, but you probably want to try to use your displacement device to create separation between the two WCAs to make it hard for them to work together.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 14, 2019 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Speed is life.