I've pretty much settled on a Sentinal & DWE. Mewgapacks for the Sting T fighters.

Basic strategy. Maximum EW for the fighters from pods, loan EW to the ISC (cheaper than loaning all the ships & fighters). Basically let the fighters do all the killing. The big problem will probably be staying at range 15 for loaning EW while he chases me.

Escort is all about phasering torps & miza fire through a down shield.

If I am lucky the Sentinel will never even fire a phaser...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, December 04, 2020 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Has anyone ever made any juxtaposition comparing the pluses and minuses between a two strand Tholian buzzsaw to a three strand one? I haven't been able to find any reference to a two strand buzzsaw.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, December 04, 2020 - 09:31 pm: Edit

John,

My personal opinion, for whatever that is worth, is that the basic "wedding cake" defense is far superior to either version of buzzsaw; but that if you do want to use a buzzsaw, go with the two-strand - especially in an S8 patrol scenario where you have to pay BPV for the web and asteroids.

1) Cost - If you build a maximum-sized buzzsaw you have to buy 90 hexes of web for a three-strand versus 60 hexes of web for a two strand. You also need to buy more asteroid anchors. This leaves fewer points to spend on ships/fighters/mines/etc. You might buy three twenty-hex strands for a three-strand buzzsaw, reducing the BPV cost for the web itself to the same as for two thirty-hex strand. But you do still need to buy more asteroid anchors so the three-strand version is still somewhat more expensive. More importantly, the enemy will have to penetrate less deeply into a 3 x twenty-hex buzzsaw than into a 2 x thirty-hex before he can attack te base itself.

2) Power - The base needs to expend 50% more power to mantain a maximum-length three-strand buzzsaw. If the three-strand buzzsaw is the 3 x thenty-hex the power requirement is the same as for a 2 x thirty-hex but see previous comment about how much easier it is for the enemy to get into position to attack the base.

3) Mines - With the two-strand version you have to mine two "channels". With the three-strand version you have to mine three channels. The enemy will encounter fewer mines with the three-strand version, taking less damage before he reaches a position to shoot the base itself.

Or just go with a standard wedding cake... but if you do want to play a buzzsaw, go with the two-strand version.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 05, 2020 - 01:33 am: Edit

Alan: you need to turn that into a term paper.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, December 05, 2020 - 11:43 am: Edit

Alan, I came up with basically the same conclusions . My analysis included the channel length differences between the two and three 30 hex strand buzz saws before an attacking unit could choose to get stuck in a web strand and have an unobstructed shot at the base, and I also determined that the two strand buzz saw would cover 4 shields of the base.

I also wanted to ask ADB about how a 2 strand buzz saw is affected by (G10.833).

I'm dong this for a mini-campaign idea for a siege of a Tholian base requiring either multiple scenarios one after another around the base without time to reinforce the web, or more likely having scenario specific rules for ships to enter and leave the battle zone during the scenario without violating the F&E command ratings of the most capable ships on either side.

In the case of a siege described above, outer rings of a wedding cake more likely could permanently dissolve under (G10.43).

The standard wedding cake is likely better for a single short scenario with limited unit resources on both sides. For defending a base under a long siege, such as a F&E battle hex at a Tholian base, I believe a 2 strand buzz saw is better.

My initial question was IF someone had done the juxtaposition. I was asking so I wouldn't be repeating effort made. You'll likely be faster getting a term paper submitted, but it was my idea.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, December 05, 2020 - 02:20 pm: Edit

John,

If you want to submit it as a term paper, go ahead. I believe I've still got a couple of term papers "on file" anyway, dealing with aspects of web defense.

The one thing I will say is that, even for a long siege, I would go with the wedding cake. I don't have time to go into detail right now because have some things I need to get done. But maybe this evening I'll post somehting in the Tholian Tactics topic about that.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, December 05, 2020 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Alan,

Thanks. My things to get done list is long enough that I don't get to concentrate on the SFU very often. I don't have very many papers in my name.

I look forward to a discussion, not a debate, on the pros and cons of each web pattern for a Tholian base defense.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, December 07, 2020 - 06:35 pm: Edit

When using a Paravian ship with QWT we wanted to know how the damage to QWT works.

QWT is closing on evil Gorn demon. Gorn fires phasers at it range 1. Does 19 damage on the phaser chart. Can someone do the math?

Halved like vs plasma, then increased by 50%? 19/2= 9.5. 9.5*1.5= 14.25 damage to the torp? Or 9*1.5= 13.5 damage to the torp? Rounded down or up?

Also is it my imagination or are QWT both the most energy efficient "torps" ever and severely lacking in crunch?

Because we couldn't parse the rules, we just said phaser damage is 1:1. Since my opponent wasn't willing to crash through them, he never got close enough to hold me still for the plasma wad. I was speed 30 for much of the game. The Paravian CWL is very very fast!

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, December 07, 2020 - 06:52 pm: Edit

YFQ1.411-412 = four points of damage removes all splash damage, seven more removes the main element (11 total).

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, December 07, 2020 - 06:55 pm: Edit

From my reading of (FQ1.38) in Module C6, I was under the impression that QWTs are damaged by phaser-equivalent weapons at a 1:1 ratio (even from weapons that otherwise have adjusted ratios against plasmas, such as microphasers or warp-tuned lasers), and only receive the half again as much damage relative to a plasma torpedo from terrain features such as asteroids or nebulae.

Of course, if you are looking try a Paravian ship with more of a direct-fire punch, perhaps Captain's Log #54 might help you in that regard...

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, December 08, 2020 - 08:03 pm: Edit

I was looking at C6 and there is a weird note about how QWT differ from Plasma. That is what we were struggling with.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Wednesday, December 09, 2020 - 08:05 pm: Edit

The YFQ1 is from the Master Rulebook ...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 02:57 am: Edit

I have questions concerning a campaign sized scenario I'm dreaming up. It is a SFB equivalent to a F&E battle hex assaulting a Tholian base with ship numbers possibly exceeding the command ratings of each side's command unit. This scenario could easily last more than 100 turns. It would allow units individually to withdraw from the battle to repair shields and damaged systems without completely disengaging from the battle and being able to return. I haven't found any relevant rules covering the scenario's necessities.

Would any withdrawing attacker ships turning fire control off and powering down weapons to WS-0, and moving beyond 35 hexes from the nearest enemy unit and any friendly unit at WS-3 be allowed to be excluded from the command rating of the command unit controlling the battle force? How far if not?

Could Tholian ships inside the web reduce themselves down to (D18.1) restrictions, including allowing no allocation of power to web generators, be allowed to be excluded from the command rating of the command unit? This low power allowance would preclude the need of Tholian reinforcements to fight past the attacker's fleet and move past neutral mines to enter the battle. They would also be basically worthless to the ongoing battle while being easy targets if caught outside the web or if the attacker penetrated the defenses. Basically I'm trying to get Tholian reinforcements inside the web without being damaged or destroyed in the process.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 09:34 am: Edit

The rules do not support this concept. The only way to do it is to send a fleet within the command rating, fight for a while, withdraw all ships, end the scenario, then allow everybody to repair whatever the rules allow, and then send a new fleet that meets command rating rules into a new scenario. That is what F&E does.

If you want to do it at your own table knock yourself out, but it could never be published as you describe. The command rules just do not work that way. In fact, they are specifically written to specifically prevent exactly what you are doing.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 11:45 am: Edit

IIRC there is a base assaults scenario somewhere between Romulans and Gorns where someone is TRYING to feed ships forward as others are destroyed so as to remain within their C3 limit, but fails as the flagship is one of the first ships destroyed.

But I don't recall what the consequences are in any detail. Just that it's supposed to be a fiasco for the attackers.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 12:01 pm: Edit

I vaguely recall someone trying to do that once (maybe me) but it isn't going to happen (in print) again. What you do for your own table is your own business.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Doug, "Operation Tribune," SH187. Module M. Romulans assault a Gorn planet. Some FORTY ships, plus fighters, gunboats, and Marines.

It's a MONSTER!!

John, what if, instead of trying to do a "Campaign Sized Scenario," you try setting up something based on the minicampaign "Stealing First Base" (T8, Module C3)?

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 12:53 pm: Edit

Another campaign setup worth examining might be (T12.0) Fall of Demorak in Module C3A, which (as the name suggests) covers the Andromedan conquest of the LDR capital in Y195.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 01:50 pm: Edit

I understand that's how the rules are written, and I'm not trying to break that system. I'm just acknowledging F&E rule (512.32) which recognizes ships stuck in web between rounds, and remembering SFB scenarios in which reinforcements arrive after battle has begun. The campaign sized scenario creates a situation in which multiple F&E rounds would be played out in a single SFB scenario.

If a fleet withdrew to regroup while one or more ships were stuck in a web, the stuck ships would be destroyed or captured in short order and the web would be reinforced to maximum by the time battle is resumed.

I'm just trying to recreate the multiple F&E battle rounds around the current unchanged values of web strength without abandoning stuck ships as lost or being the only Tholian targets unless there is a retreat.

It was worth asking, and it's better to ask and propose than not.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 02:40 pm: Edit

I sort of think of SH187 (Thanks Jeff for remembering it) as the example in SFB of why trying to string things together is a bad idea.

By definition, you don't have the C3 resources to handle that many ships real time, so you're going on a preset schedule which can't adjust effectively to changes in circumstances.

On the other hand, the F&E rules for a Tholian base assault sure SEEM to imply that the waves come more or less one right after another as ships stuck in web stay stuck in web rather than vaporizing between scenarios. I think this has to be put down as an abstraction of the actual rescue efforts for ease of play in F&E, and that in SFB something different is happening.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 02:41 pm: Edit

For comparison's sake, (T12.3) notes the limitations on both the LDR and Andromedan sides in terms of how much repair and recovery work can be put in between each "battle round" as fought out via (T12S1.0). Presumably there would be similar restrictions in place in terms of how quickly (or not) the Tholians would respond to each wave of attack.

Indeed, if you wanted the Andros to be the ones targeting a Tholian base, perhaps you could refer directly to (T12.34) in order to account for Andromedan logistical efforts between "battle rounds".


Actually, now that I recall, the Andromedan attack on Korivala portrayed in Module X1R as (SH247.0) is technically a second "battle round", in that a wave of Andros had already struck at the planet's defences prior to the arrival of the Echelon of Judgement. In principle, one could "reverse-engineer" this scenario into a mini-campaign, which also accounted for the first wave of Motherships deployed against Korlivala - and, depending on how well (or badly) either side does, open the door for a third (or fourth) wave of attacks.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Jeff, Douglas and Gary, much appreciation.

Abstraction is probably the best way of looking at it. Without web stuck ships, the Tholian player could ask the attacker how many turns until the next battle begins. Then both sides could change their battle forces, make repairs to systems and shields limited by time and energy, and the Tholians could reinforce their web, again limited by time and energy, and working web generators.

For what it's worth, I had Klingons as the attacker while considering that there would be no fundamental differences if any other galactic forces were involved.

Most of my SFU materials are currently boxed and buried. I've got some rummaging to do to find the appropriate rules to use.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 05:41 pm: Edit

ZSPP I have a question on damaging QWT with phaser fire. FQ1.38

Specifically how does that part "half again as much damage" work.

So a QWT is inbound. Demon Gorns shoot it and do 8 points of phaser damage (per the phaser table). divide by 2 then multiply by 1.5 to get 6?

Seriously, we were stumped by it so we just said QWT are damaged 1:1...

An example or two would help.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 06:58 pm: Edit

As per FQ1.381 six points of phaser, Asteroid or dust removes the splash element from the torpedo. (It does not say half the phaser damage at all.)

FQ1.381 An additional 11points of phaser,asteroid or dust damage will (for a total of 17 when combined with FQ1.381 above) completely remove the torpedo.

Nothing about half phaser damage. There is nothing in the QWT rules that say that. The main thing to remember is that QWT warhead is not reduced by damage. Only removal of the splash element then the main body completely. Also QWTs have 3 ECM built in not ECCM.

By Peter DiMitri (Pdimitri) on Monday, December 14, 2020 - 07:02 pm: Edit

If you have done 8 points of phaser damage, you have removed the splash element, which requires 6 points of phaser damage. The main element is untouched even though you have scored 2 points beyond the 6 required for the splash element.

You would need another 9 points of additional phaser damage to remove the main element. The main element is removed by 11 total points of phaser damage and you had already gotten 2 towards that total. However, anything less than the additional 9 will have NO EFFECT on the main element.

6 points of phaser damage removes the spash.
11 points of additional phaser damage removes the main element.

That's it. Unlike plasma, there is no gradual reduction of the warhead strength for any amount in between. They are kind of like drones that in that way.