Ted Fay:

Thanks.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 12:40 am: Edit

With the work which has gone into expanding the array of heavy war destroyers available on Shapeways, I was curious as to what kind of missions players were assigning to the various HDWs (and their HWX counterparts from Module X1R) - and, indeed, if they echoed the kind of "mission variants" outlined in the various master Ship Information Tables for Federation and Empire.


Previously in this thread, I had considered the RTN-hunters: those ships used during the Andromedan War to detect satellite bases and too try and run them down before the Andromedans could re-locate the base (or destroy the ship which had uncovered it).

Most empires would have HDWP and HWXP variants with which to attempt this role; in the case of the Federation, there is what F&E provisionally refers to as the "-Z" variant (with four F-111s and a pair of special sensors) to make use of in the "standard" timeline, or perhaps the same "-P" variant as other Alpha Octant empires over in the "dark future" timeline.

I was minded to consider how the use of these variants compares with the various war cruiser PF tenders (and/or their advanced technology counterparts in Module X1R). For example, the Romulans would seem a first glance to get more out of the SparrrowHawk-EX than they would out of the SaberHawk-EXP in this role; whereas the Paravian CWP from Module C6 seems less capable of holding its own than their HDWP might be in the same circumstance.

Indeed, to go back to the Federation, how the HWX in particular has no direct Move Cost 2/3 equivalent (as they are yet to have an X-ship equivalent of the NVH, or perhaps any sort of "NPFX" for use in the "dark future"), and thus may act as a handy backstop to the dauntless GSXs and their GVX half-sibling. Perhaps, rather than building X-raider "mission variants" of the DDX or NAX, Star Fleet fielded a proportionally higher number of HWXs instead?


But to get away from RTN-hunting, I was curious as to what kind of weapon and system configurations players were using for their HDWs and HWXs.

For example, is it more common for anyone using a "command" variant to equip its weapon mounts with special sensors (akin to the Pegasus Flagship Cruiser in Module R12), or to arm it with more weapons instead?

Or, in the case of survey variants, would it be more advisable to use the "spare" box (after installing the probe-10 launcher and the two added labs in the other three) with another shuttle bay (to perhaps facilitate the use of a heavy transport shuttle), or to add another lab box, or to use it for some other purpose entirely?

And for those looking for more of a direct combat role, is it more common for those empires with access to drones (or death bolts, in the case of the Module C6 Carnivons) to us those in the aft-facing weapon mounts - or is it worth working with the aft-facing firing arcs provided for direct-fire heavy weapons such as photon torpedoes or disruptor cannons?


And finally (for now), how would players rate the relative upgrades one receives from a given empire's HWX over its respective HDW base line?

For example, in terms of heavy weapons at least, it would appear at a glance that those empires which have multi-turn weapons that scale well from one size class to another (such as the Federation) gain more of an advantage in some ways than either those which have single-turn weapons (such as the Klingons) or those which have certain size class restrictions in place (such as the ISC). Or to put it another way, the Fed HWX can leverage its fast-load X-photons, whereas the Klingons can't add more X-disruptor mounts to the HF5X than are on the non-X HF5 (although in fairness, this is the case for most Klingon X-ships), while the ISC HWX has relatively weak plasma armament and no ability to mount a plasma-M or X-PPD.

But of course, a ship's heavy weapon suite is but one of a host of ways in which an X-conversion acts as a force multiplier for a given ship's capabilities. So perhaps the likes of the Klingon HF5X and ISC HWX aren't so badly off when compared to the Federation HWX, when one takes the full scope of each ship's capacities into account?

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 12:18 pm: Edit

In my experience/observation, drone using Empires put drones in the option mounts, 360° speed 32 drones are generally more useful than rear arced other weapon choices.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Another thing you might try experimenting with are to use Drogues in your rear option mounts (unless you're operating a fighter carrier; the Drogues will block the aft bay doors)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 - 01:22 pm: Edit

Jeffrey George Anderson:

Ah, to use drogues in the weapon option mounts you have to convert the weapon options to "shuttle" boxes (legal to do so) at which point they are part of the EXISTING shuttle bay, and if you deploy drogues from them, they use the existing shuttle bay doors, you do not get extra doors to the shuttle bay by using the weapon options as shuttles.

By Jeffrey George Anderson (Jeff) on Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 12:31 am: Edit

SPP

You are, as always, correct.

For some reason, I just can't get it through my thick, dense skull (six inches or so of neutronium?)...

I suspect part of the problem is my fixation that certain ships (notably the Kzinti) have forward facing shuttle bays (under the Cobra Hood) and others, such as the Gorn, still have quite the separation between the shuttle bays and the rear option mounts, so I never think of putting them where they belong.

To some degree, notably when the NWO and PO are shuttles, I can think of the whole thing being a tunnel bay, but aside from that...

I wish I could promise that it won't happen again, but I know myself too well (I type with a sheepish grin)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 04:58 am: Edit

Jeffrey George Anderson:

Regrettably, I am not infallible, as members of this board can attest. I do try not to make errors.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Thursday, November 29, 2018 - 11:42 am: Edit

Figuring out how to allow for that merged shuttle bay is an entertaining exercise when trying to model these things, too.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, December 13, 2018 - 09:45 am: Edit

Actually, there was something else which I was wondering about, in terms of HDW/HWX configurations.

If one was to create a "combat" configuration of, say, a Federation HDW (or a "-K" configuration, as listed on the Fed F&E SIT), perhaps it might look something like the Ship Card worked up for Federation Commander in Communiqué #52 - with a pair of type-G drone racks in the weapon mounts, the AWR* boxes left as-is, and the NWO boxes used as additional Hull boxes. (FC tends to downplay the "casual carrier" concept for most empires, so the two F-18s are replaced with admin shuttles in that game system.)

In SFB terms, perhaps it makes sense for a combat configuration to stick with the AWRs, rather than switch them out for another option (such as batteries). But in the case of the Fed HWX, where a set of four X-batteries would provide 12 additional points of reserve power, might there be cause to consider assigning a "-K" configuration with those rather than its default X-AWRs?

And on a broader note, would there be other Alpha Octant empires for which it would make sense to use X-batteries rather than X-reactors, if the goal was to work up a "-K" configuration for their HWXs?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 19, 2019 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Question to the players...

Just how much better are X-ship maulers compared to standard maulers?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 19, 2019 - 09:20 pm: Edit

MUCH better. For one thing, X-batteries hold three points of power each. So even though I think most X-maulers have slightly fewer total batteries than there standard-tech counterparts, the maul is far stronger. An X-mauler with 25 batteries could feed 75 points into the mauler without tapping its engines for mauling. At point blank range, this makes for a 150-point maul... which will get most targets' attention...

Also, the superior shields and EW and X-tech maneuvering capabilities mean the X-mauler is much better able to get into good firing position, and also more likely to survive the attempt. X-maulers also have generally better non-mauler weapons than their non-X counterparts, which can be useful for (for example) fighting through enemy drones to get into shooting position.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 22, 2019 - 10:32 am: Edit

The larger warp engines also make it easier for the mauler to dump energy from the warp engines into the maul, and still maintain a high speed potential afterwards. As a result, it's possible to do better than a 200 point maul and *still* be able to move very fast.

Also, X-maulers are potentially MUCH tougher than regular maulers. That 75 points of battery power can be used to reinforce a shield, or guarantee a win in a tractor auction.

As both SFB and F&E player, I'd recommend X-maulers have a 16 point compot in F&E. I know that's a 60% increase in capability, but frankly an X-mauler is MUCH better than even the Gorn DNT (14 points) or the Lyran STL (12 points).

A crippled X-mauler is also potentially quite viable given all its battery power (assuming it's batteries are full, of course, and assuming 50% batteris available). Thus, I wouldn't impose the typical lower defpot on a crippled mauler. An X-mauler with just 12 batteries can still generate 36 power for various purposes in one turn, and it still has 20 warp engines (again, assuming 50% damage across the board). Thus, I would call a crippled X-mauler 8 points on the crippled side, vice 5 or 6 if you followed the traditional pattern of a regular mauler of 10/4. It also follows the pattern of the Lyran STL (12/6) and Gorn DNT (14/7).

If 16/8 seems like too much, then I would simply put an additional XTP surcharge to pay for them rather than water them down.

An X-mauler really is just THAT much better.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 22, 2019 - 11:22 am: Edit

Ted,

I don't think that all X-maulers should have the same combat value, anymore than all X-cruisers do. I think the Romulan Flamehawk-X is kind of in a class by itself since it retains the two type-M plasma torpedoes of the Firehawk-X. (It loses the type-S torps of course, since that's where the mauler goes.) Retaining two heavy plasma torpedoes gives it options that the other maulers, even the X-maulers, don't have.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 22, 2019 - 12:59 pm: Edit

Alan, fully agree.

I could also see a 15/7 for general X-maulers and for something like 16/8 for the Flamehawk-X. Or 16/8 for the D6M-X and 17/8 for the Flamehawk-X.

I don't think X-maulers should be any less than 14 compot though (7 or 6 defpot). Even a "generic" version like the D6M-X is heavy hitter, MUCH better than just the ordinary D6M, which is 10/4.


YMMV.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 22, 2019 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Discussions of F&E X-maulers is going to get lost in this SFB topic. Further discussions should be taken to the F&E section.

FEDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 22, 2019 - 02:30 pm: Edit

Chuck, OK. But this topic was a SFB question - so let me give you some more SFB data. Naturally each mauler is different, so let me go with something I consider "run-of-the-mill". I.e., not a weaker mauler (Kli MD5) or a very strong mauler (Rom Flamehawk, Lyran Saber Tooth Lion). I'll go with the KRM, since the D6M and STT (all 10 point maulers in F&E) have reasonably similar power and weapon profiles.

KRMB: 30 Warp, 4 Impulse, 3 APR, 35 batteries (34 connected to the mauler), 3*Ph-1 (FX), 4*Ph-2 (2*L+LR, 2*R+RR). Hull size (internals): 106, not counting tracks. Shields: 30-22-22-22. Max energy through the mauler *with batteries* (no direct power damage to ship): 34. Max energy through the mauler, period: 70. BPV: 142.

KRM-X: 40 Warp, 4 Impulse, 3*APR, 25 batteries (24 connected to the mauler) (holding a total of 75 battery power), 9*Ph-1, (3*FX, 1*LF+L+RR, 1*RF+R+LR, 2*L+LR, 2*R+RR). Hull size (internals): 108, not counting tracks. Shields: 40-36-32-32. Max energy through the mauler from batteries (no direct power damage to ship): 72. Max energy through the mauler, period: 118. BPV: 290

In terms of percentages of KRMX/KRM:

Phasers: 128% (with 257% increase in capacitor). Also, all ph-1 vice 57% being Ph-2.

Warp: 133%.

Impulse/APR: 100% each

Battery power *available*: 214% (211% available to the mauler).

Hull Size: 102%.

Total Shields: 149%

BPV: 204%

Maximum possible energy through the mauler, no direct power damage: 212%

Maximum possible energy through the mauler, period: 169%

Some "ineffable" considerations.

Crunch. X-maulers have massive crunch effect over even a regular mauler. Maximum mauler damage, to range 1: 140 versus 236 (enough to nearly cripple a starbase). To range 5: 70 versus 118. To range 10: 35 versus 59.

Power: Maximum power output of a KRMB is 72. Maximum power output of a KRM-X is 121 (168%). That means a KRM-X could bounce 4 fully overloaded photon torpedoes with shield reinforcement from the batteries alone, or tractor 2-3 cruisers at range 3 even through significant negative tractor.

Maul without damage: more than double. Therefore, significantly less likely to suffer shock in terms of F&E.

The KRM-X is capable of shunting 20 points of warp energy into the mauler, and then is still capable of maintaining speed 31 after the 10 points of warp engine damage.

Conclusion: The KRM-X is a MONSTER compared to the KRMB.

Let's compare the KRM-X to the vaunted Lyran STL and Gorn DNT:

STL: 45 Warp, 6 Impulse, 8 APR, 52 batteries (48 connected to the mauler), 4*Disr-40 (FA), 6*Ph-1 (2*FA+L, 2*FA+R, 1*LS, 1*RS), 4*Ph-3 (2*LS, 2*RS), 4*ESG. Hull size (internals): 175, not counting tracks. Shields: 42-36-36-36. Max energy through the mauler *with batteries* (no direct power damage to ship): 48. Max energy through the mauler, period: 79. BPV: 217.

Gorn DNT: 48 Warp, 6 Impulse, 4 APR, 6 batteries, 2*PL-R FA, 3*PL-F (FP, LS, RS), 8*Ph-1 (FX), 2*Ph-3 (1*LS, 1*RS). Hull size (internals): 136, not counting tracks. Shields: 41-36-36-36. No mauler, obviously. BPV: 235.

KRM-X/ STL comparison:
Phasers (counting disrupter as phaser for this comparison): 64% (with 225% increase in phaser capacitor):

Warp: 89%

Impulse/APR: 50%75/

Battery power *available*: 144% (150% available to the mauler).

Hull Size: 62%.

Total Shields: 94%

BPV: 135%

Power curve: 80% (47 for the KRM-X versus 59 power for the STL).

Maximum total power output: 109% (121 for the KRM-X versus 111 for the STL).

Maximum possible energy through the mauler, no direct power damage: 150%

Maximum possible energy through the mauler, period: 149%

Conclusions: While the STL has some advantage in direct firepower and size, the KRM-X more than makes up for it in terms of a better power curve and maneuverability. The KRM-X can, pound-for-pound, out-tractor the STL assuming both have full batteries. Also, X-ships, with X-abilities have serious maneuver and shooting advantages over the Non-X STL. The 135% increase in BPV seems quite justified in IMO.

FYI, the STL is a 12 point mauler. 135% of 12 = 16.2. Thus, there is at least a gross justification for calling a KRM-X a 16 point mauler.

The Gorn DNT is a bit more difficult to compare directly, since it’s “mauler” capabilities in F&E are not directly through a mauler. However, the comparison between it and the KRM-X seems not that far off from the STL.

Now, if you take a *superior* mauler, like the Famehawk-X (with its two M torps) you get even better (it also has 24 batteries that go through its two mauler cannons (12 apiece)), so it’s mauler profile is roughly the same as the KRM-X, but it also has two plasma-Ms (justifying an 18 point mauler IMO).

Chuck, I hope that this more analytical SFB approach will help you.

Ted

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, April 22, 2019 - 03:18 pm: Edit

The STL has four ESGs, which have no counterpart on a mauler. In this case they probably should factor somewhat, as they're quite useful at close range... ie the range you'd be at to get most effective use of the mauler cannon itself. Decent synergy.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, April 22, 2019 - 03:57 pm: Edit

Agree with Richard.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Lyran STL good

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - 10:48 pm: Edit

STL is good, but still not as good as the FHFX.

With two type-M plasmas, the Flamehawk-X can do serious damage at greater range.

Flamehawk has PPTs, which means it can use them as ECM torpedoes. This is on top of the EW benefits all X-ships have.

Those four ESGs give the STL a lot of drone defense. But the FHFX can cloak, which will also shed a lot of tracking drones - and enemy plasma torpedoes as well.

Flamehawk-X is strategically faster, with greater range. This isn't important for an S8 patrol battle, but could be very important in a campaign.

I don't want to knock the STL. It is a powerful and impressive ship. But in my opinion the FHFX is KING of the (non-Andro) maulers.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, April 24, 2019 - 04:00 am: Edit

Flamehawk FHFX is an impressive ship.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, July 06, 2019 - 06:00 pm: Edit

I swear there used to be a topic titled "How to play bad SFB" or something like that, but I cannot find it, so I will stick this here as it has some relevance.

I have commented, elsewhere, about the infamous shipping consortium that I operated, basically because I was the player who would agree to run the "targets" for other players. Not wanting to just "sit and take it," I naturally examined the rules and made plans (some Orions would just say I was "evil," but I digress) to defend my ships.

By this time you probably all know why T-bombs are denied to merchant vessels, and nuclear space mines are much more restricted than they used to be, and both are more expensive, and more restricted, than they used to be, and Dummy T-bombs are (comparatively) hysterically restricted.

And some of you may wonder when the axe will fall on purchasing boarding parties on merchant vessels.

But there is another issue that I have mentioned among the things I did that has not gotten as much play, so I thought I would regale you with that particular fiasco.

Long ago an Orion Raider Cruiser came running up on a convoy of six small freighters. The freighters, as it happened, were at WS-II, and lopping along at a mere Speed 6, with low-powered fire control. The six freighters all also gathered into one stack rather than remaining in separate hexes as the convoy started out.

The Orion charged up to Range 1, launching a type-IV drone from each of this drone racks (wing options) at two of the freighters (to tie up the convoy's phaser-3s). He then tractored two of the freighters, fired a fully charged photon torpedo from his centerline mount into a third freighter (the drones were to hit two freighters he was not going to tractor), and fired two phaser-1s each into the two freighters he had tractored. In turn, the six freighters ignored the drones and savaged the Orion's facing shield with their phaser-3s (all shifted by one by the Orion's built in electronic warfare).

On the next impulse he did not move, nor did the freighters, the drones impacted, badly wrecking the two targeted freighters, and there was damage on the three engaged by the photon and phasers. The freighters then all launched their shuttles.

The Orion captain noted to the convoy commander, kindly, that the shuttles had been launched much too late, since he assumed the freighters were moving Speed 6 so that the shuttles could stay with them, but noting that the convoy commander should also remember that tractored ships cannot launch manned shuttles.

The convoy commander replied, with a puzzled expression, "who said they were manned?"

The Orion captain was puzzled a moment himself, then his eyes widened. He considered his options, but as he only had three transporters, and boarding seeking shuttles with regular boarding parties only had a 16% chance of success, and his tractor beams were already otherwise occupied, he opted to dump two points of battery for an additional two points of ECM (added to the two built-in points) during the direct-fire step of that impulse, so any seeking weapons would be shifted by two on the damage chart. (The last point of battery was used as shield reinforcement.)

It was all he could do.

On the next impulse the six suicide shuttles impacted. Two were reduced to 50%, so the total damage was only 90 points.

Looking at the number of damage points, the Orion Captain declared "catastrophic damage: Impending destruction," and launched his shuttles so that some of his crew might escape and live to pirate another day, but of course did not avail himself of "emergency beam-outs to the freighters" since he was a pirate.

The Orion ship detonated.

This very quickly wiped the smirk off the Convoy Commander's face (he was young, and inexperienced, and had not really thought about the Orion ship blowing up). The resulting explosion (as you might guess) destroyed the two freighters that had been hit by the type-IV drones, crippled the three damaged freighters (the one hit by the photon the worst of the three), and badly damaged the one previously undamaged freighter.

Fortunately for the convoy, all of the crews survived (emergency beam out to the sixth freighter, the least damaged of the four survivors, but 22 points through a five box shield with one point of battery reinforcement is still 16 points of internal damage on a ship with only 45 total boxes including the sensors, scanners, damage control and excess damage, and it took another four points through the dropped shields to save the crews of the two destroyed ships when they blew up, so 20 points of internal damage total).

However, the convoy commander's intention to run down and destroy the escaping pirate shuttles was, shall we say, "overcome by events." (My best ship may have had five intact shields, and could repair its phaser-3, but it was not really in shape to run down the shuttles and their two phaser-3s.)

In any case, while I was aware of the idea, and at different times had some suicide shuttles armed in other convoys, I never repeated the "success?" I had that one time. Because, well that player made certain to tell all of the other local players what had happened. (I knew I should have killed those shuttles, dang it, but my ships were too badly damaged to take on two shuttles.)

When "local law enforcement" arrived (the guys I was supposed to be holding on waiting to be "rescued" by), I did put in for the bounty for destroying an Orion raider, but I doubt it really covered the damage to my ships, not to mention the two lost.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, July 06, 2019 - 07:12 pm: Edit

And, yes, the Orion had bad luck (or maybe I did). Somehow he did not destroy any of the shuttles before they were launched (18 internals each on two separate small freighters really should have destroyed at least one of the shuttles before it was launched, if not two). Heck, 10 internals from the photon had a good chance of getting the shuttle on that freighter. But all six shuttles survived to be launched, and I lost two freighters as a result. Of course, if my freighters had survived, it probably would have meant that the Raider Cruiser got away.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 11:40 am: Edit

While that convoy commander is undoubtedly a legend was the damage to the convoy worth the kill? I am asking if that guy would get hired again. If the pirate succeeded the company loses one freighter (and possibly the crew). This approach destroyed a pair of freighters and did extensive damage to the other four. The bounty better be high.

The shuttles could probably outpace the freighters after the explosion. I am not sure if you would have enough power to keep up with them to destroy them while keeping fire control running, the shields up, and the phaser firing.

That said, that is a beautiful attack. I crippled a Klingon dreadnought once with a horde of suicide shuttles from my Fed fleet. I launched a wing of shuttles while pulling back to reload photons and many of them fired phasers on a Klingon frigate. He did not check to make sure all of them fired and 8 suicide shuttles crashed into the Klingon's C9. Good fun.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Jon Murdock:

As I noted in the last line "I did put in for the bounty for destroying an Orion raider, but I doubt it really covered the damage to my ships, not to mention the two lost."

That was, however, very early in my Star Fleet Battles career. The explosion value of the Raider Cruiser is probably wrong, as it was the "original" explosion rules in force, and the bang could have been bigger, but as everyone was pretty much "right there for it" I do not have to remember the explosion weakening over range.

I am pretty sure we did the damage using the "Battle Damage: Code Red" card system, and maybe he would have hit the shuttles if we used the normal Damage Allocation Chart (you get to a shuttle hit pretty quickly on the "8" row, i.e., if there is no "hull" left on the freighter, you hit the shuttle).

But I was, as noted, young, and inexperienced, and I think that was the first time an enemy ship exploded in my face (and he had to have a "suicide bomb"). Would not have been nearly as bad had it been a marauding enemy light cruiser.

I have to say, I did not ignore the drones because I knew they were type-IVs, I ignored them because I thought they were type-Is. (Who wastes a type-IV on a small freighter?) Since a phaser-3 was not a guaranteed kill on a type-I drone, I fired them on his ship to help reduce shield reinforcement so my suicide shuttles would be more effective. If he had launched them far enough away so that I would have had an opportunity to identify them, I probably would have fired four of my six phaser-3s at them. One of those cases where "mistakes were made." The whole reason he launched the drones was to draw fire away from his ship, but it did not occur to him that the target would assume they were type-Is and decide "six points of internal damage was survivable," so he needed to launch them far enough away so that they could be identified and put "the fear of God" into the freighter captains (18 points of internal damage is a different thing from six).

And he was planning on running off with two (2) of my freighters to loot a leisure. The set up told him that the freighters were all standard small freighters, no Q-ships or armed freighters, so he really was not worried, he just needed to grab a freighter and get off the map with it (and was being greedy to grab two) before "help" arrived. So he needed to wreck the engines on the freighters he was intending to haul off so they could not fight him (try to slow him by turning and accelerating in the opposite direction) very well. But he did not want to use "Non-Violent Combat" in case he did have to fight the reinforcements.

The fact is, however, that after this event (fiasco though it was), no one raiding a convoy I was operating ever came closer than Range 2 (unless the small freighters were moving at least Speed nine, and had done so for more than two turns; different rules for large freighters, of course, but for small freighters that meant they could not have a point of power holding a suicide shuttle), unless they could be certain to turn and move away before any launched shuttle could hit them.

And that of course is where the mines came in.