Archive through July 08, 2019
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: General Tactics Discussion:
Federation Tactics:
Archive through July 08, 2019
I have been looking at Fed carrier groups.
There cost has started to really amaze me.
Such as a CVA needing at least 3 escorts and can have 4 if using the flexible escort rules.(S8.315)
So CVA 215 No drone upgrades.(+12 med) (+24 fast)
NAC 128 no drone upgrades.(+10 med) (+20 fast)
2 DE 112 no drone upgrades. (+12 fast) (+24 fast) Each,
Fighter SQDs
A-10 sq 11 A10s 1 A10E 122
F-14 sq 11 f14s 1 f14E.
med drones..150 fast 168.
Total- 885 med 949 fast. That is with out COs and no special drones. Also my drone count and costs may be off. That is the minimum costs i have i beleive.
Any ideas thoughts? I am curios what others might use here.
Gregory S. Flusche:
First, you seem to have missed the drones on the A-10s, there are 22 type-I rails on 11 A-10s (the A-10E has no drones).
Second, if you are concerned about costs, and depending on who your opponent is and how you are going to conduct the battle, you can cut a lot of the drone cost on the fighters by simply loading the drone rails with RALADS. You can also cut costs by using type-IV drones in the drone racks, or by using anti-drones in the type-G drone racks.
Third, you can use (S8.312) to simply reduce the number of fighters you are operating.
Fourth, if you think the Federation CVA is expensive when fully tricked out, you should look at the Federation SCS with 12xF-14D, 12xF-18C, and 6xA-20F with escorts of 2xNAC and a DWA.
Even at that, a Klingon C8V with 24xZ-YC, escorted by an AD5 and 2xF6E is not cheap either.
Vandor, please remember just how potent a Federation Heavy Carrier Battle Group is. I mean, think about how a fight between one and a fully prepared, ready, and well protected Klingon BATS might go...
Feds sit out at range and launch fighters. Klingons respond by launching fighters and gunboats. Federation CVA retains a compliment of four photon torpedoes, so with EW support from a SWAC (to counter defensive EW from the BATS), the Admiral chooses to fire narrow salvoes of standard fused photon torpedoes. Sure, it may only hit on a die roll of 1, but if it hits, that's 32 points of damage, and very nearly a downed shield.
Do the Klingons send their fighters and gunboats in to try and stop the bombardment BEFORE they lose a shield to an eventual die roll of 1? I think their hand would be forced on that issue due to the threat. If they don't, the Federation will eventually get lucky with their dice rolls and the BATS, despite its phaser 4s, will end up on the losing side of the long range bombardment fight.
Think about it. At range 30 (the maximum range of the photon torpedoes, so the range the Federation are likely to use for this fight), the six phaser 4s will, assuming no EW shift, do 6 points of damage. The Federation, not moving at this time, can easily put forth enough specific shield reinforcement (even their Destroyers will be able to) and keep themselves from suffering any damage.
Meanwhile, the Fighters will remain on their Balcony and Track pads, and, as such, will be protected by the shields of the Carrier.
If/when the Klingons do feel forced to deploy their fighters and gunboats counteroffensively, the Federation escorts, with their AEGIS controlled Gatling guns, will likely cause grievous losses among the Klingon fighters, even without the fire of the Gatling armed F-14s. Meanwhile, both of those, PLUS the overloaded photon torpedoes (from the DEs) will put a world of hurt on the Gunboats as well.
In short, the ability of the Carrier in this case to drop a shield on the BATS can force the Klingon to divide his forces and be conquered.
Once the mobile defenders are broken, the A-10s can go in. I'd assume the Klingons would have a minefield out to a range of eight hexes; it would be able to prevent any ship trying to escort a minesweeper to get within overload range of the base. However, the A-10s would be able to launch their torpedoes out to range 10 (if I remember correctly) and, although it leaves them just hitting on a die roll of 1-2, that still means that, if the A-10s have suffered 25% casualties during the fight with the mobile units, they can still be expected to drop 12 points of damage in on a shield already hyperstressed (if not dropped) by the Carrier's narrow salvo.
Meanwhile, the maximum amount of damage a phaser-4 will do out at range 10 is just 8 points; not even enough to cripple an A-10 (unless, of course, it's using WBPs; something unneccessary when fighting a static target, such as the BATS).
Also, once the mobile units have been dealt with, the Destroyers can start using THEIR photon torpedoes in narrow salvo with standard warhead mode, although if the BATS is able to force that +1 shift (due to EW; the Destroyers won't have the SWAC benefit to counter that), they may have to move in closer to do so.
In short, sure, a Federation Heavy Carrier Battle Group is expensive as all get out, but there's a reason why they became such a dominant force in the mid-years of the General War.
Wow i did miss the drones on the A-10s. The cost goes up even more. The truth is I was trying to figure the cost so i can build a force that would fight it as well as guess at the cost of a full fleet using S.8. The CVA is a great centerpiece for a fleet.
Jeff you forget the escorts can have photons as well. 2 per depending the escorts you take.
As can A10s and A20s though those have to get closer.
Jeffrey George Anderson:
Given that (assuming a Klingon BATS with hangar bay modules, a squadron of Z-YCs, and a flotilla of G1s) is significantly out-BPVd (even if you only use original F-14s) by 923 (Federation) to 841 (Klingon), and that is not including the SWAC shuttles. If you set the year before Y183, you would reduce the Klingon BPV by another 22 points (Z-YCs become Z-YBs and half their type-IF drones become type-VIF drones).
Note, the BPVs assume all type-IF and type-VIF drones, no special drones and no Commander's Options, all type-G drone racks loaded only with type-IF drones. All type-I and type-III drone rails/ready rack spaces filled with type-IF, and all type-VI rails/ready rack spaces loaded with type-VIF.
Your problem is that your tactics reveal that you are woefully inexperienced with electronic warfare (gentle ribbing, no real attempt to be mean here). Basically standard photons have no chance to hit the Battle Station. It will generate six points of ECM (which, yes, your Carrier can counter that with generated ECCM). But the Base can also generate and lend itself five additional points of ECM, of which an MRS shuttle or a SWACS shuttle can only counter four points, which means an effective ECM level of 1, adding one to all photon torpedo (and other direct-fire weapons) die rolls, meaning standard photons miss automatically, and proximity photons only his 33% of the time at the range you are firing from.
If you want to bombard the base with standard photons, you have to get a lot closer, or you have to bring along a scout.
Gregory S. Flusche:
It is wise to never reply to an individual's tactics without reading them fully.
Jeffrey George Anderson was aware of the photons on the destroyer escorts, he merely decided to hold those as overloads awaiting the Klingons being forced to attempt to attack the carrier group with their gunboats and fighters in an effort to save the base, which he assumed doomed by the heavy carrier's continuous bombardment of four standard loaded photons.
The flaw in his ingenious plan is that a SWAC can lend the carrier two points of ECM and two points of ECCM, and has two "swing points" that can be either, but it can NOT lend the carrier five (or six) points of ECCM (or ECM). So the base, in this set up, can render itself immune to standard photons fired from beyond 12 hexes range. If he wants to attempt his bombardment with standard photons, he will have to close to 12 hexes range, otherwise he will be required to add a scout (a real one, not a pseudo one like a SWAC shuttle) of some kind to his force to counter the base's ability to generate 11 points of ECM.
As to minefields, a big issue is density. The further from the thing the minefield is shielding, the less dense it is, so you have to make choices.
Generally, if I am going to be attacked by a disruptor armed empire (Klingons, Kzintis, Tholians, Lyrans, WYNs, Lyran Democratic Republic, Frax), I would hope to have enough mines to try to keep them from reaching range 15. This is a double reduction, i.e., the disruptors will hit 50% of the time as opposed to 67% of the time (unless he wants to risk burning out any UIMs he may have) and any given disruptor hit does two points of damage instead of three. This is also a nice range because phaser-1s are reduced to only a 33% chance of doing damage, and half the time they do it will be only one point, two points the other half. Really, I would like to keep them from ever getting close enough to fire at all, but cost of a minefield to keep phaser-1 armed ships outside of Range 75 is just mind-boggling to even contemplate, but I digress.
When it comes to photon-armed empires (Federation, Tholians), the object is generally to keep them from gaining Range 12 (which means the minefield can be much denser). But you are still going to have to deal with the phaser-1s. Between Range 13 and Range 15 phaser-1s will hit 50% of the time, scoring one, two, or three points of damage each time a hit is achieved.
What can I say, I did this for a long time, and there are a lot of old memories.
Well I was not thinking so much about the EW factor at all. However with a Size class 2 carrier i would want to include a scout if using Direct fire weapons. I am not at all used to drones. I do not generally play the Federation are Direct fire weapons as when i do not need to roll a 6 well i roll 4 sixes.
As the above i would not need to save photons as he would have to drive thru a ton of drones and yes the A-10s photons
Gregory S. Flusche:
The electronic warfare statement on my part was directed at Jeffrey George Anderson's proposed tactics.
Add a scout, and the BPV imbalance becomes even greater so of course the Federation should win if there are no changes to the Klingon side. For example, with Gregory S. Flusche:
The electronic warfare statement on my part was directed at Jeffrey George Anderson's proposed tactics, add an NSC and every other turn the CVA group could fire all 10 of its available photons with no shift. The scout would have to be tucked well back as it will take all 32 points of generated power to accomplish this (four points for housekeeping, four points to power the special sensors, and 24 points to provide ECCM, leaving just two points of reserve/battery power). But that increases the BPV difference to 1,047 to 841, not counting the SWAC shuttles.
The Klingon base can, as noted, hold a long time with its EW edge if the Federation carrier group does not have a scout and decides not to push in close. The Klingon base will basically be using its drones in the counter drone role. Plus its small number of T-bombs bought with Commander's Options. It will make a choice to use shuttles as wild weasels, or scatter packs. It will have the option if things look really bad, to have the PF scout "go wild." It can also use the PF scout to take over lending it ECM if it needs to use the six points of power generating its own lent ECM for something else, like repairing shields.
TBH, I've never flown a Carrier Group by itself against a BATS as I wrote about; it was merely an attempt on my part to demonstrate that, while expensive, a carrier battle group is a VERY powerful weapon against a fixed target.
Even as I was droning on about it, I recognized that most of the elements in such an assault weren't present.
Minefield? Attacker would have a minesweeper present; a ship I'd use (initially) to build a defensive wall to protect the carrier group from the counterattacking enemy fighters and gunboats.
As far as a scout goes, yes, I'd have had one there as well. In fact, whenever I've had a battle group with more than four ships, I've always included a scout. Never flown a major fleet action without one, and yes, in this case, I'd have used her instead of the SWACs for EW support during the "Early Heavy Bombardment Era..." uhh, "...Phase..." of the battle.
The example also made no mention of the local forces, both directly attached to the BATS and regular Fleet elements under the BATS administration, to say nothing of local Police forces.
Truth be told, IF I were to wish to run an assault on a target as critical as a BATS, I'd use the "Stealing First Base" minicampaign (T8.0) as the basis. As I said, my last post was more an off-the-cuff explaination for why a Federation Heavy Carrier Battle Group is as powerful as it is expensive, nothing more.
Jeffrey George Anderson:
Truthfully, I have had to try to sap my way through minefields without a "minesweeper." Truth is, there are not very many of them, and I might find myself (have found myself) tasked to attack something behind a minefield without the benefit of a minesweeper.
It is easier to do with some empires (Lyrans, Lyran Democratic Republic, Neo-Tholians). And how effective the defenders are can account for a lot (in the Ghostlight Day 1 story in Captain's Log #9 the Federation never really had a chance, and worse, not only did I have a minesweeper, I was by then a wizened hoary old veteran of sapping minefields).
Same problem with scouts. Everyone wants one (they are "free" as in they do not count against the command rating, so sure, add one to all the combat ships). But they are also in limited supply and sometimes (more often that we like to think) there is no scout available (The Admiral kept the scout for his own purposes, or the only available scout was shot up in its last engagement and is back in the rear waiting for repairs, so you will just have to "do the best you can" on this mission, and by the way, if you fail, you will be blamed, not the fact that you did not have a scout and a minesweeper.)
It is always nice to have everything you need, including that drone bombardment squadron bombarding the target as you make your approach.
The reality is that you are often trying to "make do" with what you have with your leaders showing their confidence in your skill by sending you off to do missions with slender resources.
It's not just the Neo-Tholians who have an advantage in minesweeping. Archeo-Tholians with webcaster or snare refits are also good minesweepers.
Of course. The old Military adage, "You don't go to war with the army/fleet you want, you go to war with the army/fleet you have."
Somehow, we grade 4-F Civilian No-Class never seem to remember that one... 
On a side note, SPP, you did mention the astronomical cost of the 75 hex radius minefield, but how much would it cost to have a field out even to the fifteen hex radius you also mentioned? While my own experience designing a minefield is limited (and was also pretty pathetic), one thing I've learned about them is it isn't the mines that do the REAL damage, it's the units on the inside that do it while the mines themselves serve more to impede maneuvers.
Jeffrey George Anderson:
Packages of mines can be purchased for 100 BPV, and this is discounted by 50% if the mines are going to be laid in a circular field around a base. I would prefer six packages, but only used that density around starbases. Around battle stations I usually used three packages.
Steve Petrick:
Mine field packages,
With a Base Station (on the rare occasion a Base Station would have one) the mine field could be one 50 BPV package circular around the Base?
Why wouldn't a Base Station have a minefield? They are military bases.
Frankly, I could see Base Stations getting mine fields from a government that suddenly realizes they have a war coming, and are not prepared, like the Federation at the start of the General War. I can also see parsimonious governments, like the Gorns, doing this instead of upgrading the base. Then, there are the governments that suddenly need to upgrade stuff, like the LDR, the Orion Enclave, and the Vudar.
I had some experience with carriers and I loved them in fixed target battles and slow moving fights such as convoy engagements but found them a nightmare in highly mobile battles. I took a Fed CVA into a mobile floating map battle and found I could rarely use the A-10s. Trying to reload 16 photon torpedoes at once really hurts the mobility of the carrier. Then you have fighters falling behind and either have to slow down or leave them.
Yuck.
Jon, does it not come down to choices? In a case such as a fed CVA carrier group vs mobile map and enemy squadron (or fleet...) composed of warships. you have to choose who's game to play. Either you play to your enemy strengths, or you choose to have your enemy play into your strength.
Chasing around the map with your carrier trailing your (slower) fighters behind you, plays directly into your opponents hands.
I submit, move slow, build your drone walls (yes, I means many!) and advance on the enemy. Force HIM to decide to fight or run. Think of it as an offensive Kaufman maneuver!
If he fights, he will have to deal with drones, fighters, photons (from the A-10s) and (if he survives that long!) the carrier and its photons, phasers and Gatling phasers.
The Federation Star Fleet has history, doctrine and procedures in place to handle different types of threats. In the right hands, it is a very effective force multiplier. Use it well! Grin.
Wayne Douglas Power:
Off the top of my head I remember that heavy use of minefields started in Y150 (also the year minelaying and minesweeping shuttles, and multi-role shuttles which can do both jobs, come into service).
Y159 is established as the year when, essentially, all base stations were replaced/upgraded to battle stations.
I will state that I much prefer at least three mine packages around a base, but tended to use only two around base stations, and one around a Mobile Base.
But, then again, I somewhat cheated.
As I have mentioned elsewhere at various time, I kept a binder of minefields for a long time. Thus I had already created a six package minefield for a Klingon starbase, and one for a Federation starbase, and one for a Lyran starbase, and one for ... you get the drift. Same thing for three package fields, and two package fields. and one package fields, all broken down by empire. So if we wanted to do a base battle I did not sit down and create the minefield then (burning precious gaming time), I pulled one out of my binder.
And, yes, each empire had more than one (when you are home bored, sit down and create a minefield for future use for your favorite empire, and another, and another).
So there were times when a "particularly important battle station" had a "six package minefield" protecting it (like I said, I cheated, but I paid the BPV for that minefield as part of the game). And times when a "low priority battle station" only had two packages (I do not remember if I ever used a single package field for a battle station, but I used such several times for Mobile Bases).
And, yes, I had a few four and five package fields I could use.
That binder is, however, long lost (along with a lot of other binders of odds and ends). Which is a pity, as I had far more minefields than I ever used. I do not think I ever used one of my Tholian minefields, for example, or one of my WYN minefields, but those probably looked like my Kzinti minefields, which had a lot in common with my Klingon minefields. The Lyran Minefields were different mostly because there were no "drone captors" (and that also applies to the LDR minefields, which were probably identical to the Lyran fields). The Orion minefields were the most numerous, the Andromedan ones the next most numerous (but would be out of date today since they got some new mines in Module C3, not to mention new bases).
Steve Patrick,
That's a lot of mine fields,
(a mine field package around an Mobile Base scenario sounds interesting, Y157).
A.David Merritt:
I was thinking of a Base Station far enough away from the front may not have, as a priority, a mine field, or may not have one placed at the time of an attack.
Quote:I do not think I ever used one of my Tholian minefields, for example, or one of my WYN minefields, but those probably looked like my Kzinti minefields, which had a lot in common with my Klingon minefields.
SPP,
I presume you mean the WYN minefield looked a lot like a Kzinti minefield? Because unless you are, for some reason, defending a Tholian base without webs, a Tholian minefield probably wouldn't look like anyone else's minefield.
Alan Trevor:
Not so,
Tholian minefields in my experience looked a lot like anyone else's minefield in intent, because they were designed, at base, "what if we are attacked at WS-0?" Or worse, were completely surprised.
Which meant delaying the enemy from reaching the webs to allow time to power them up.
Or "what if there is a lack of means to maintain the webs, even though we started at WS-III?" (and let's not ask how we managed to power the webs to WS-III levels without those supporting assets to do so).
I never designed a Tholian minefield on the assumption that the base was fully defended (WS-III with a full 12 ship Tholian fleet in residence, I am not saying you said this, but just pointing out that I never knew when I designed a field what the circumstances of its use would be and never designed them for 'best case' situations), I designed them to be something to delay the attacker hopefully long enough for help to arrive. And if help was already there, all the better.
To be clear, while open space begins only six (6) hexes from the base, the minefield was generally designed to keep the enemy further from the base before he could start diving into the outer web when it had no power, and allow Tholian ships maneuver room, to include room to "run." A field tightly wrapped around the outer layer of web is a lot easier for the enemy to get around and cut the retreat route of Tholian units if the situation is untenable.