Archive through March 05, 2020
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: The Academy:
Term Papers:
Archive through March 05, 2020
Drop Your Shields to Take Less Damage!
by Peter Bakija
USS New York
Due to the way that hellbore damage rounds half a point of damage up to the detriment of the target ship (E10.412), there are certain situations where a ship with multiple down shields can benefit from selectively dropping additional shield facings to take less internal damage from a likely hellbore volley.
For example, if a given ship has 3 down shield facings, and is hit by a standard hellbore at a range of 15 hexes, the 10 damage points that the hellbore does will be divided by 4 (E10.412 calls for dividing the hellbore damage by X+1, where X is the number of down shield facings a given ship has), resulting in 2.5 damage points per down shield facing, which rounds up to 3 damage points per down shield facing, and 1 remaining damage being done to existing shield boxes (i.e. 9 points of internal damage and 1 point on a shield). Conversely, If the same target ship had four down shield facings, the hellbore damage would be divided by 5, resulting in 2 damage per down shield (for a total of 8 points of internal damage being scored, and 2 points of damage being scored on existing shield boxes). As such, there are situations where a hellbore will do less internal damage to a ship with more down shield facings!
Granted, this is most likely to come up in a single ship duel (such as a Tournament Duel game), and comes with other risks (such as exposing another arc to phaser sniping). But if you look at the status of your shields, see that it is likely you'll be hit by hellbores in a situation where you could benefit from dropping an extra shield to take less damage, you might as well if it isn't otherwise likely to harm you. In the late stages of a long and brutal Tournament Duel where both ships are crippled, moving slowly, and sniping at long range, every little bit can help!
You divide the damage by X+1, where X is the number of weakest shields. And then round .5 up, in the direction of "more damage to the weakest shields".
So at R15, a 10 point hellbore on a ship with 3 down shields does 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, 2.5, which rounds to 3, 3, 3, to the down/weakest shields and 1 to existing shields. Which is kind of nuts.
At R3-4, you get the same effect from an OL HB--22 damage on a ship with 3 down shields becomes 5.5, 5.5, 5.5, 5.5 which rounds to 6, 6, 6, 4 which is 18 internals (assuming 3 down shields) and 4 to the up shields. If you drop a shield, it becomes 4.4, 4.4, 4.4, 4.4, 4.4, which rounds to 4, 4, 4, 4 to the down shields, 6 to the up shields. So if you drop a shield when you have 3 down shields and expect to be hit by a R3-4 OL HB, you take less damage (16 internals with 4 down shields vs 18 internals with 3 down shields).
I mean, like, this doesn't come up *much*, but certainly in a tournament game, late in a long game where a Hydran or Orion (or WYN) has one HB left, and he is likely to be firing std HBs at R9-15 when you have 3 down shields, dropping a non facing, weak back shield saves you an internal from each HB.
ANDROMEDAN CAPACITOR SCRAMBLE
Steven P. Petrick, Texas
When flying an Andromedan, you need to take into account the need to clear your panels, generally this means. Clearing the panels is done at the end of the turn, before energy allocation (D10.41). If you started the current turn with your phasers fully charged, and your batteries fully charged, you may come to the end of the turn needing a few extra points of space in your batteries to remove power from the panels. The trick is to not fire the power in your phaser capacitors. When it comes time to fire your phasers, use (H6.22) to fire the phasers from the batteries. You will reach the end of the turn with your phaser capacitors still full, but have created space in the batteries to take power from your power absorber panels.
EARLY YEARS PLASMA RAPID FIRE
Jeffrey George Anderson, USS California
According to rule (YFP8.1), "The maximum true range (of an early years plasma bolt) is five hexes... If the true range is greater than five, there is no damage to the target."
Given that a plasma-F and a plasma-G torpedo have equal strength up to a range of five hexes, there is no reason for the Gorn WBL (and pre-Y105 refit WBI) to arm its plasma-G bolts as plasma-G bolts. It can save the power and arm them as plasma-F bolts.
According to rule (FP1.93) you have to have two points of reserve power to apply to a launcher (two points each for multiple launchers) to finish arming the "two turn F." The WBL/WBI have five boxes worth of Battery, enabling them to do so...
A potential tactic for this little feature involves the Gorns using their superior mobility (a thought that, by itself, makes me chuckle) to charge in on the second turn of their mutual arming cycle with their Romulan enemies as a way of forcing the Romulans to quickly finish their plasma-R torpedoes as plasma-F torpedoes; a balance that will greatly reduce the ratio of Romulan plasma throw weight to Gorn plasma throw weight away from what they would have with fully armed torpedoes.
An unexpected angle to answer my question, SPP, but thanks.
There is a potential problem with this idea: the Hawk has sufficient reserve power to reply to the "Quick Gorn Eff" with one of its Plasma-G torpedoes finished as a fast-load Plasma-F while the StormBird has sufficient reserve power to do so with both. Also, given that Romulans are able to fire their Plasma Torpedoes as seeking weapons (that aren't reliant on dice to determine "Hit-or-Miss" AND are not reduced to half warhead strength by rule (FP8.43)) by Y88, this tactic does little to alieviate the plasma throw-weight ratio between Romulans and Gorn before Y104.
Jeff Anderson (U.S.S. California, even though most think I live in the state of confusion 
)
Jeffrey George Anderson:
I checked the Early Years rules and nothing invalidated your concept, and did not want you to lose the possible term paper credit, since someone else could have made such a post if I had simply confirmed it in the Q&A topic. So i chose this route. As with many things, it is a tactical option.
With the exception of the Term Paper I posted for Jeffrey George Anderson above, all term papers posted after this date will be considered for Captain's Log #54.
Snipe-B Shotgun.
Add a Plasma-F drouge to your lowly snipe-B. Uncloak and deploy the drouge. launch 3 plas-F from the drouge, your two plas-F and then Your G torp. Even at weapon status 1 you can launch 5 f torps that way and on turn2 could fast load the G as a F. Best of all 3 three drouge torps are on one target but the other three can be on any targets.
Petrick needs to submit his targeting paper, I. E., instead of exploding an enemy frigate, cripple a DW and knock in the shield of a war cruiser.
THOUGHTS ON FLEET TARGETING
Steven P. Petrick, USS Texas
It is standard battle doctrine in a fleet engagement to concentrate the firepower of the entire fleet on one target, causing it to explode. Obviously, adjustments must be made based on the total firepower available (after some weapons are assigned to defense), range to potential targets, any of your ships out of position, and the amount of damage needed to destroy any give enemy ship. Sometimes the fleet can destroy only one target, other times two closer small targets can be destroyed in the same turn. Sometimes one of your ships is out of position for the primary target but can at least dent the shields of a target of opportunity.
Assuming that your fleet has the firepower to destroy the smallest enemy unit (e.g., a frigate) you might well be better off to break with standard doctrine. Fire enough of your fleet's volley to cripple a war destroyer, and use the remaining firepower to knock down the front shield of a cruiser (or any suitable target). The war destroyer (more dangerous than a mere frigate) is out of the fight while the undamaged cruiser now has maneuver problems because of the down shield.
Let's assume equal fleets of three frigates (arbitrary Federation & Empire combat power four each), three war destroyers (combat power six each), three cruisers (combat power eight each), and a dreadnought (combat power 12 for a total of 66 in rough Federation & Empire terms).
Over three turns, you might lose the three frigates to an opponent using standard battle doctrine (reducing your total power from 66 to 54), but you have eliminated the firepower of three larger war destroyers (combat power 18) and restricted the movement of some cruisers (reducing his effective combat power by somewhere between four and 24. If we call the reduction 12 points he lost about 30 total effectiveness while you lost only 12). Half of his firepower is now out of the fight or unable to maneuver into it, while you lost only a fifth of your firepower. Turn #4 will see you with a superiority (54 to 36) that will only get better. (In a campaign you might want to be sure to pick off a crippled war destroyer before it heads for a repair yard, but in a patrol battle the victory points for crippling a war destroyer are nearly those for destroying a frigate.)
And a counter argument to Fleet Targeting
Mike Grafton
USS South Carolina (on tdy to USS Luzon)
Whilst some advocate choosing the largest target you can destroy (the infamous exploding frigate ploy), and others targeting the largest target you can cripple (and saving the rest to dent/ remove a shield on another target), there is an alternate. Especially now that explosion strengths are so low.
You should look to get rid of the CAPABILITY of the most effective enemy you can in one go. So if you can ruin a Destroyer, Kill a Frigate, or just annoy a Cruiser, you probably want to ruin the Destroyer.
BUT, there may be a time where you have the option of taking out a key target from their contributing lineup. This is where you destroy that Escort Frigate between your incoming drone wave and their main combatants/ carriers. Or that pesky scout that keeps loaning to the ships getting up into your face. It can be especially amusing to zork a carrier that is soon to launch its reloaded fighters.
Often times you just need to do a certain amount of damage to create a "mission effective" for that annoying unit.
The point is that you need to evaluate WHAT IS THE BEST WAY to apply a given amount of firepower to hurt the enemy or help my follow on attacks...
Point of Order, the USS Luzon should be the BRP Luzon.
Why BRP?
At the time the federation gets established, the Philippines were the 57th (and largest) state in the USA.
Other states include (in order)
51 Puerto Rico
52 District of Columbia
53 Guam
54 Virgin Islands
55 American Samoa
56 Northern Mariana Islands
Ah, as I understood it, we used their current designators for their Navy.
The discussion on Fleet Targeting is VERY interesting, but I just had another thought. Certain races have unusual heavy weapons. Seltorian Particle Cannon can be fired twice per turn, the closely related Vari Particle Beams have the even more unusual Particle Probes, Uthiki Boson Drills have special sheild penetrating capabilities, as do Qari Kinetic Cannon, and the list goes on.
All those weapons (at least to me) seem perfect for Mizia. At a Fleet scale, how quickly can a DW be stripped of its weapons, and in terms of the impact on the capabilities of an enemy fleet, how does that compare with the detonation of a Frigate?
ADM. I was kidding.
I THINK all federation ships are USS something...
Tractor Defense versus IIIXX drones.
Mike Grafton
USS South Carolina (on TDY to the USS Luzon)
When being attacked by waves of "Long Lance" type IIIXX drones, using your tractors can be effective. One amusing thing to do is use your tractors to ROTATE the drone so the target is no longer in the drones targeting arc as it begins it's final attack run. Or tow them past the target.
The drone is using it's own seeker to target according to (whatever) a fixed criteria once it completes it's last "waypoint." If there is no target in it's targeting arc, it should continue on it's way off "to infinity and beyond" looking for that valid target.
NOTES
STILL away from my books. For around 3 years running. I'd appreciate it, if I forgot something, you gently correct me. I readily admit to being a very fallible goof.
INSPIRED by the next CapLog battle force scenario...
It seems unlikely that this is of much use outside of extremely limited circumstances. Long range targeting assumes a fixed target. Rotating well enough to get that out the drones' FA ain't easy.
It would be better if there was a detailed example attached.
Ginger McMurray:
Actually, long range targeting assumes a fixed target, or a relatively slow moving target on a relatively fixed course, i.e., a convoy. When bombardment drones showed up there were still a lot of very slow early freighters that could be hit.
The principle problem with tractoting bombardment drones and pulling them "off course" is the unknowns. Assuming a "look for the base" could result in your finding the drone you grabbed is looking for you.
Hypothetical...
Drone is in Hex 2217, heading in Direction A
Its target is in Hex 2215 and is stationary.
Drone gets tractored by a ship in Hex 2218 that's currently moving in Direction B.
Drone gets held firm in the tractor.
Tractoring ship moves to Hex 2318. Carries drone to 2317. Target is still in drone FA so it remains targeted.
Tractoring ship moves to Hex 2417. Carries drone to 2416. Target now along LFHR, but is STILL, if barely, within drone FA so it remains targeted.
Tractoring ship moves to Hex 2517. Carries drone to 2516. Original target now no longer in FA. Tractoring ship also not in FA.
Tractoring ship releases tractor and on next movement turns and moves to hex 2617, heading C.
Does this work as an example, or am I (as usual) completely off base?
Don't forget that the drone could turn (part of its movement) to keep its target in arc (and IIRC, HET if needed).
Stewart, that's only if it has a target. Jeff is proposing this as a way to keep it from ever acquiring one.
I am NOT saying this is a panacea. I just think it seems like a way for ships defending a base (for instance) to use their tractors to mess with the drones. ESPECIALLY when the drones aren't fast.
Or make the drone use it's HET early in the turn, and then lose it's tracking later when it's target again goes out of arc.
IIRC, SVC said something like "IIIXXX drones are launched with targeting information something like "go in direction A 1000 hexes, turn to direction B and go 137 hexes, turn to..., when you finish with that last turn and movement instruction, turn on your seeker head and look for a valid target according to your instructions..."
Though to be fair, SVC's explanation was a tad clearer.
Electro-Static Shock
by Gary Carney
HMCS Ontario
In the course of their efforts to conquer other galaxies and to subdue their star-faring inhabitants, the Andromedan Invaders may find themselves being obliged to fend off rival extra-galactic challengers - such as the warships of the Juggernaut Empire - from time to time. This may be so even in the Darwin's "dark future" timeline outlined in Star Fleet Battles Module C3A, in which the Andromedans were able to deploy battleships as well as Dissection Beam-armed Mothership variants.
For an Andromedan player seeking to use this expanded tool set in order to deal with such problems, it is worth considering the interaction of the Dissection Beam with Juggernaut electrostatic armor. For "standard" Andromedan weapons - phasers, tractor-repulsor beams, etc. - any damage scored would affect the "charge" in a given electrostatic armor bank, and then go on to scoring internals; the underlying electrostatic armor system is not lost unless the ship itself is destroyed. In the case of a Dissection Beam, however, this weapon cannot score damage on a given electrostatic armor bank until all of its "charge" has been disabled. At which point the Dissection Beam uniquely attacks the electrostatic armor boxes themselves (which cannot be repaired by the Juggernaut ship during the course of the scenario), before moving on to slice off internal systems.
As Dissection Beam-armed Motherships fire each of their Dissection Beams as separate volleys after all other direct fire has been resolved [see (EC1.32)], the onus would be firstly on using other weapon types to overwhelm the facing arc's electrostatic armor "charge", and then using the DSBs to permanently weaken the target ship's defenses in that arc. Even if that may not leave enough Damage Points free to pick away at the ship's internals right away, this would leave the target Juggernaut ship far more vulnerable in subsequent battle passes.
Of course, getting close enough with enough power to both secure a tractor lock (needed to maximize Dissection Beam damage) and to apply a strong enough volley of fire to get past the ship's facing electrostatic armor "charge" without having one's panel banks filled up by the typical Juggernaut ship's plethora of phaser firepower can itself be a daunting challenge - particularly if the goal is to catch the Juggernaut ship in an arc not currently being protected by its rotating shield. Although a well-timed offensive displacement might scramble the target's fire control systems just long enough to allow for such a strike.
Just be careful not to get too close, as the high explosion strength on each Juggernaut Empire hull type (even the Juggernaut Frigate has an explosion strength of 75!) can make being caught within radius 1 of a detonating Juggernaut ship a decidedly fatal experience.
-----
Thanks to SPP for his clarification on the DSB-to-eletrostatic-armoor interactions, and apologies for any further errors or oversights on my part.
Gary Carney:
I am afraid the preceding is not a "tactic," it is an explanation of a rules interaction.
One clarification, once damage drains an armor bank, any dissection beam destroys inactive armor bank boxes before it can go to destroying other internals (all armor boxes in a given shield facing must be destroyed before dissection beam damage can feast on what is behind it).
So, yes, any Juggernaut armor box that is destroyed (as opposed to inactivated) by a dissection beam is "gone" and cannot be repaired, but any armor box that still remains can still be repaired (reactivated).
To take a small example without actually looking at the systems.
Juggernaut has a 25 box armor belt facing direction A. Andromedan scores 10 points of dissection beam damage, the armor belt is reduced to 15 active boxes and 10 inactive boxes.
Andromedan non-dissection beam damage scores 20 points of damage, 15 of which inactivate the other 15 armor boxes and five of which are scored at internal damage.
Over the turn break the Juggernaut programs to reactivate (repair) two boxes (damage control rating of four with four points of power allocated). This armor comes up at the end of the turn (just as restored shield boxes would).
Over the next turn break the Juggernaut again programs armor repair, planning to mask the armor belt, but is out maneuvred by the Andromedans, who hit the armor belt with 30 points of dissection beam damage.
Two points of the dissection beam damage deactivate the two activated boxes. the next 25 points destroy the armor belt (ripping it off the ship) and the three remaining points are rolled to see what systems they remove from the Juggernaut since there are no shield boxes remaining. The Juggernaut player loses the four points of energy he had put in to reenergize two of the armor because, well they are not there any more. And he cannot make any subsequent attempts to repair that armor bank for the same reason: It's Gone."
It works like this because electrostatic armor acts like shields (so the dissection beam damage must initially be resolved against it just as it would against shields), but there is no way to destroy armor on the DAC. [See (D3.21) Exception: EXCEPTION: In the case of ships with armor (D4.12), damage which penetrates the shields must also penetrate the armor before it is considered "internal" damage. and (D4.0) Basically, each point of damage marks off one box on the SSD (a shield box, armor box, or internal system box); destroyed boxes do not function (unless repaired). and (D4.12) Damage points which penetrate the shields strike the armor (each damage point destroying one armor box); after the armor is destroyed, the damage proceeds normally.] Because of the way the armor works, all non-dissection beam damage would bypass the inactive armor on a Juggeraut, but a dissection beam has to destroy it (tear it off the ship) and cannot do that until and unless it is inactive.