| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 04:22 pm: Edit |
SPP,
With respect, I think your wrong about that. It would take a Tholian base one impulse (after Y160) to get the innermost ring to strength-1, which is enough to block direct fire weapons. And if there is a six-hex globular web in the hexes adjacent to the base, the base itself can power it, even if there are no supporting ships/PFs at all. The attackers wouldn't have to go through the onion peeling exercise with only a single ring, but they would have to close to point blank range (unless they can take out the base entirely with seeking weapons; but they better kill it quickly or the base will have reinforced the web to the point where the seeking weapons can't get through it.) Even an isolated base with no supporting ships/PFs should have at least a six-hex globular web, with a close-in minefield - which the enemy will have to pass through because the base is immune from long-range direct fire.
And for more conventional base defenses, the Tholians should consider "eccentric" minefields. Most non-Tholian bases have to consider the possibility that they could be attacked from any direction. But if the Tholians are defending a wedding cake, they can force most attackers to attack from a specific direction. Suppose the Tholian ships reinforcing the outer ring are to the "north" of the base. Klingons (or any attacker other than Seltorians or Andromedans) have only a few hexes in the outer ring from which they can hit those defending ships. And the minefield rules require "packages" to be more-or-less evenly spread around the base... by number of mines. But unless I misunderstand the rules, there is nothing that prevents the Tholians from concentrating all their Large Explosive Mines to cover the approaches to those few hexes, and putting the small mines "south" of the base to make the numbers even out. More to this, individual purchased mines don't have to spread evenly around the base. Those mines would be concentrated "north" of the base as well.
I'm afraid I have to disagree on this one.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 05:16 pm: Edit |
Alan Trevor:
As military men, we both know the age old adage about tactics (said with humor, nothing else is meant by it). Yes, even a surprised base has access to all of its power generating systems (even if the AWRs cannot produce warp power, you just need standard power to power a web), but I again note that the minefield in my case is designed for not just "what if we are "surprised" but what if we are surprised but the fleet is not, or what if we are surprised and alone, and I choose to allow room for a fleet to maneuver and to make it difficult for the enemy to blockade the base to keep my reinforcements from reaching it. A tight circular minefield is too easy for the enemy to get around and hit my reinforcements.
And my minefields were not designed for specific battles, they were designed for "General Use" meaning I never knew what the defending force would be, whether it would start with the base, or arrive sometime after the battle began, or over several different turns. And, yes, they were designed "pre gunboats" because the base might be there, but its gunboats off someplace else (Federation & Empire says that a base might have its fighters and PFs off intercepting enemy Force A when enemy Force B attacks the base).
I designed a lot of minefields, but all of them started from the "what if" worse case scenario, and none of them assumed a specific "this will be then enemy attack force. Other than that (to take the Tholians) a given minefield might be designed to resist the Klingons, or the Romulans, or maybe the Federation, depending on where the base was, they all were designed as a general defense starting with the worse case. My Romulan minefields were designed to face off with the Gorns, the Inter-Stellar Concordium, the Federation, and the Tholians. There were differences depending specifically on the possible attacking empire (and, no, I did not design a Romulan minefield to resist an attack by the Kzintis or Lyrans or Hydrans, I never got that far, the Andromedans and Orions were a different matter because they more readily might have a bases that could be attacked by anyone, i.e., a base in Hydran space, or a base in Gorn space or etc.). But I pretty much only developed base minefields against the standard enemies of a given empire. Were I to rebuild that binder (not an option at this remove), I would doubtless research a counter-Seltorian minefield, but I doubt I would use it simply because I would, as the "Tholian Commander" have to decide if a given base were going to be attacked by the Seltorians or the Klingons, and would probably be inclined to stay with the counter-Klingon design.
To be clear, I have no problem with your disagreeing and finding fault, we are all of us different
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 06:00 pm: Edit |
SPP,
Yeah, I fully appreciate designing the minefield for "General Use". It's just that I believe the close-in minefield (about 6-8 hexes from the base if it has a "3-tier wedding cake", closer if it is 2-tier or only a single ring) is the best General Use minefield for the Tholians, pretty much regardless of the opponent* or number of defending ships. Naturally, I always have to have a path by which friendlies can get to and from that base; but that's not that difficult to arrange even with a very dense close-in minefield.
You mentioned a close-in minefield making it easier for the enemy to get around the minefield and attack approaching reinforcements. But here's how I would look at that. Have the attackers committed major forces (enough to force the defending ships back behind the middle ring) into the web yet? If yes, they don't have much remaining strength to intercept my reinforcements. If no, my reinforcements go into a "holding pattern" close enough to reach the base before the outer ring degrades to the point the Klingons can get through it, once they have committed, but far enough away that they can easily avoid the Klingons, should they abandon the base and head for the reinforcements themselves. Once the Klingons have committed into the web, then my reinforcements head to the base. And the Klingons won't be able to stop them. Note that if the Klingons are concentrated on one side of the web, the original defenders move to the opposite side to maintain the web, and the reinforcements aren't needed. The Klingons have to spread out to cover all sides of the web, and I concentrate my reinforcements on a fraction of the Klingon fleet - a fraction which has no mobility and has lost most of the benefit of its drones.
*The Andromedans might be an exception, but even that's a "maybe". Against the Selts, I still like a close-in minefield. Yes, given a sufficient number of web breakers relative to the number of defending ships I have, they might be able to pull down the web from long range. But if they have that much firepower, the base is probably toast regardless of what I do with the minefield. And even then, taking down the web from long range takes more time, improving the odds that my reinforcements arrive to stop them.
Incidentally, on purely technological grounds, I consider the Andros to be far and away the most dangerous opponent for the Tholians, the Hydrans are second, and the Seltorians only third. But that dscussion should probably be in the Tholian Tactics topic.
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 07:31 pm: Edit |
Alan Trevor:
I am considering the base from WS-III with defending ships down to "surprised" with no defending ships (the worst case scenario, and post fighters and PFs, being caught with those elements away on a mission. I make the same consideration for a Klingon base, or a Federation base.
If there are assets in place to add to the defense, good. But I want the base to have as much ability to resist as possible while hoping reinforcements get there.
As to your reckoning about who the worst attackers are, as noted, I never designed a Tholian or Federation, or Gorn, or etc.) minefield to defend against Hydrans because that was extremely unlikely historically. Had I not moved to Amarillo for a few years or more, I might have. I added to the binder when I was not doing anything else. And I never made a specifically "anti-Andromedan" minefield for any empire (or an anti-Orion for that matter) because they were likely to turn up anywhere. As to anti-Seltorian one, as noted, Module C3 came out after I got to Amarillo, and at this juncture I would probably have just gone with the standard "anti-Klingon" fields (the Seltorians operated from Klingon, not Romulan or Federation space). But, again, if I had kept working on the Binder of minefields, I might have started building such fields.
I did build Andromedan minefields, and those were for defending against any empire, as in a specific Andromedan minefield if the enemy were Lyrans, or one if the enemy were the ISC an so on. (Well, again, not Seltorians, or Jindarians, or Vudar, or Paravians, or Carnivons, or Peladine, or Borak, or any of the Omega Octant empires or the Magellanic Cloud empires, because those all showed up after I got to Amarillo.)
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, July 08, 2019 - 09:58 pm: Edit |
I understand that. What I'm having trouble understanding is why the Tholians would prefer a dispersed minefield over a close-in, concentrated one in either a surprise or WS-III situation, or anything in between.
Quote:I am considering the base from WS-III with defending ships down to "surprised" with no defending ships (the worst case scenario, and post fighters and PFs, being caught with those elements away on a mission. I make the same consideration for a Klingon base, or a Federation base.
| By Michael Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 02:04 pm: Edit |
"Even an isolated base with no supporting ships/PFs should have at least a six-hex globular web"
I don't think Tholian bases routinely have a zero strength web at all times.
So they BETTER have an attending web equipped ship to spin that web & an anchor. Or two of them. Or some asteroids + web casters on the base.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 02:26 pm: Edit |
I'm not sure where you get that from. The rules say that even a surprised base has zero-strength web around it, maintained by special low-power maintenance buoys. Those buoys don't function in combat, however. They seem to be purely for long-term sustaining of the web at zero-strength, with the ships and base powering up the webs when intruders are detected. I can't cite the rule sections off the top of my head, but will give you the references when I get home tonight.
Quote:I don't think Tholian bases routinely have a zero strength web at all times.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 02:27 pm: Edit |
Really, we need to move this discussion to the Tholian Tactics section.
| By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 11:03 am: Edit |
Jeff Wile:
I agree that the Fed CVA group should not play the enemies game but I found when I stayed slow and sent out drone waves in a mobile battle my opponent would withdraw and outrun them. I had speed-20 drones. He would come in on an oblique and fire at range just before a turn break and withdraw when the drones came out. It was easy for him to get out to range 35 from my ships (and fighters) so the drones would lose lock on. The battle ended up being indecisive. The A-10s damaged a D5 pretty badly but most of the squadron was lost in that engagement. I retreated when my drone supplies began to run low so I guess I technically lost. I lost several fighters to long range disruptor sniping. I probably would have lost fewer if I had played the EW game better.
If I had speed-32 drones the situation might have gone better.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 12:28 pm: Edit |
Jon: there is a reason why there is an old toast that says "To a willing enemy"!
And I do agree with your implication that often a floating map just results in frustration when one opponent (or the other) just "runs out the clock" having no better idea how to proceed in the battle.
If your regular opponent just "Runs away" instead of confronting your carrier group, you have little choice left. Either you play scenarios with a fixed target (such as base assault) or you use one of the campaign scenarios. If the enemy must defend a fixed target, he can't just run away without sacrificing the base or (whatever the goal of the scenario is) and thus losing the scenario.
I like playing the Kzintis because the background clearly states that they are aggressive. (Perhaps, too much so!?!)
You might consider giving your opponent a bpv edge. If he hesitates to confront you at even odds, perhaps have a slight advantage in PBVs might lend him some courage?
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 12:59 pm: Edit |
I don't think I can let that pass without comment. If you're fighting on a floating map, certain forces just don't "work" as well, though they might be devastatingly effective on a fixed map, or against a fixed target like a base. In a scenario where the players choose their own forces, it's the responsibility of the player to choose a force that is effective under the scenario conditions. I can respect and admire a player who deliberately chooses a sub-optimal force as a challenge, to test his skill. But if you do choose a sub-optimal force (whether deliberately or because you didn't properly analyze the scenario beforehand), don't complain if your opponent uses tactics that make your force ineffective. "I made a dumb choice selecting my units so I want a rule to make my opponent use dumb tactics, to compensate" just doesn't wash.
Quote:... having no better idea how to proceed in the battle.
| By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 01:41 pm: Edit |
No offense taken. In my defense though I did not select a force based on BPV. It was part of a campaign that sometimes randomly pulled ships from your Order of Battle and it was especially important (due to campaign considerations) to try to win that specific scenario.
I agree with you in general though. I tried from then on to restrict using my three carriers (CVA, CVS, FFV) to fixed target attacks or convoy escorts. You could select forces with some restrictions to hit bases and planets or send them to escort duties with some limits but the campaign was designed to sometimes create weird suboptimal situations and this was one. It did not always go his way either and I got some nice fights.
If I remember right it was my CVA group against five Klingon cruisers: I believe a D7C, a D6, and three D5s though I could be wrong. I think I did out BPV them but just could not get them to engage. I was also unlucky on his force. If he had rolled up more frigates and fewer cruisers for the random fight he would have had to get closer with the short range disruptors on the smaller ships and I probably could have done more damage.
It was an interesting campaign but the battles were too big and it did not get far. We eventually did switch to big fixed maps at his insistence when my Federation retrogrades were driving him nuts and convoy attacks especially seemed to go on forever.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 02:32 pm: Edit |
Alan Trevor:
No surprise here, but I must disagree with you.
The beauty of the BPV (basic point value) system is the theory that similar BPV sized battle forces CAN successfully engage in battle. Yes, there are differences between carriers and fighters and straight line ships... but tactics and strategy can be used to force an advantage on an opponent.
But even more importantly, I DID NOT ASK for a rule to help me out. I often choose to play scenarios as the under dog trying to "do better" than the historical participants did. Sometimes I am too aggressive, and often pay the price for it.... but nearly as often an aggressive stance will cause an opponent unready for it to "blink" or "flinch".
Bottom line, I do not want my opponent to Bail me out... I want to dominate and utterly defeat my enemy just as any good Kzinti would. (Oh. Here is your arm back. I hope I didn't hurt you beating you with your own arm!) grin.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 03:22 pm: Edit |
Jeff,
Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes. My objection is mainly to your statement, in your 12:28 PM post, about
The "... having no better idea..." in particular makes it sound like the opponent has the responsibility to close, even if he is strongly advantaged at long range. You may not have meant to imply that, but it does sort-of read that way. In tournament SFB, a closed map and "non-aggression rules" are necessary, since the players have to get through multiple rounds in finite time period. But in general, the opponent's responsibility is to play his best game. And for some match-ups, sitting back at long rang and wearing the enemy down, even if it takes a long time, is not "having no better idea". It is the better idea. If players don't like the very long games that may sometimes occur this way, they can play convoy attacks or base assaults, which "collapse" the battlefield and force close range engagements without the artificiality of "walls in space". Or they can play fixed map games if they don't mind those walls.
Quote:... one opponent (or the other) just "runs out the clock" having no better idea how to proceed in the battle.
| By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 03:46 pm: Edit |
Alan:
I agree with you that my opponent was playing a good game, not sure if it was the best game but that is a nebulous concept.
I do fall under the umbrella of those who do not enjoy extended games of long range fire. They are time-consuming. They are tedious. They also favor the incredibly careful gamer who takes a lot of time planning move and countermove which extends the game time further. I find the whole process boring. The game I mentioned above took 8 hours and there were probably less then 40 internals scored (not counting shuttles and fighters). In the end I lost but it did not feel like it. It felt like a draw. There were no moments of critical choice or excitement or adrenaline as you rolled the dice or tried a move that could possibly win you the game. I realize this makes the game more analogous to actual military action where the careful safe advance might be dull but is safer and more likely to result in victory but I do not play games to experience that.
This is also why I do not play campaigns in SFB any more. The few people who want to seem to play like my opponent did that time (and I am not knocking him, he was a good player) and conserve all assets and most battles are full fleets and end indecisively with little to no damage on either side as nothing substantial happens.
Agreed on your observations about BPV though. I flew a Romulan squadron against the Federation in a nebula and it was glorious. Plasma torpedoes are so much better then photons in that environment. Also the only time I have seen a +4 EW shift.
| By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 04:20 pm: Edit |
Alan:
I think it is fair to say, that if one plays enough war games, you will see a lot of different ways to play various games. My comment re:"running out the clock" was meant to characterize those isolated cases where a players plans are no longer effective. Either the enemy did something unexpected, or the player themselves failed to follow their own plan.
The Most extreme case I ever saw was a Federation player took his unrefitted DN after two Hydran Stingers.
He had not fought Hydrans before and did not know what to expect... just assumed that two fighters couldn't hurt him...
After getting alpha strikes by the two fighters, two volleys over a turn break, the Fed player spent the rest of the game trying to get his fleet as far away from the Hydrans as he could, protecting his wounded DN as best as he could.
My point is, people handle tactical situations differently. Some do well, others, not so much. In this case, the Fed player didn't have a plan B. He just didn't want to face the Hydrans again. (Ive told the story before, this was the guy that started crying when the DN got toasted. We had a hard time trying to explain to him that photons are not a good anti fighter weapon.)
| By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 07:09 pm: Edit |
First battle where I encountered Federation F-15 fighters, they made absolutely no impression. That was because the Federation made a pretty grievous error that resulted in a crippled Federation escort cruiser being shoved (by tractor) into the squadron and then detonated.
It made it all the more shocking on a replay where the Federation did not make that mistake and the C8 (supposedly operated by the more experienced player, I think it may have been only the third game I had played) I was escorting was pretty much destroyed (and I ran like the cowardly dog I was to escape).
| By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, August 11, 2019 - 11:35 pm: Edit |
So, has anyone here had a chance to try out the Federation old heavy cruiser, either in its historical Middle Years guise or with its would-have-been refits installed?
While the ship represents a "road not taken" in the Alpha Octant, I wonder if players have nonetheless found it to have enough distinctive features relative to the Constitution-class heavy cruiser to make it worth taking for a spin now and then.
Actually, I think it would be interesting to see it go up against the Kzinti middle years cruiser from Captain's Log #50, which itself represents a "road not taken" design lineage. Perhaps there might have been cause for an OCA and a CAM to mix it up during the Second Federation-Kzinti War?
| By Daniel Eastland (Democratus) on Monday, August 12, 2019 - 09:15 am: Edit |
My group played a Y125 battle and took the OCA out for a spin just a few months ago. It was partnered with a Kzinti CS fighting against a Klingon D6 and a Lyran CA.
For the year it was a monster of a ship. And it acquitted itself well in the battle. The armor plus the copious hull and lab gave it surprising toughness once the volleys started to fly. Just don't let anyone get behind it because you will not shake them loose!
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, April 13, 2022 - 10:11 pm: Edit |
A question for people experienced in playing the Federation:
You're playing the Feds in a campaign (Note; I'm not talking about F&E, this as an SFB strategic campaign) and the campaign rules say the Feds can build their "conjectural" PFs if they choose, but then cannot build F-111s or use the "Third Way". They have to decide one way or the other at the start of the campaign. Do you go with the PFs or do you stick with the "historic" path of F-111s and third way?
Personal answer: I would go with the PFs. I am a big believer in PFs generally and also think the Thunderbolt is a quite good PF - superior to its "natural enemy", the Klingon G1. But I don't play the Feds that often nor do I often play with very large numbers of fighters. So I may be missing something. I'm interested in hearing from people who are perhaps more experienced with the Feds than I am.
| By Jamey Johnston (Totino) on Wednesday, April 13, 2022 - 10:27 pm: Edit |
My opinion:
Play to your strengths. Me, personally, I'm the fighter and drone expert in my local group, and you give me an NVH with a squadron of F-111s and I will hand someone a _bad time_.
But if you are more experienced with PFs, you might have better luck with them. I'm not a big fan of the Thunderbolt due to the warp power requirements for the torpedoes, but I admit to having very limited (2 battles maybe?) experience flying them.
| By Mike West (Mjwest) on Wednesday, April 13, 2022 - 10:34 pm: Edit |
The economics of F&E make fighters work because they get free replacements, and every PF costs money. Since you are not using F&E that consideration doesn't matter.
For SFB alone it comes down to some simple choices. Which is better:
- a PF or two F-18Bs?
- a PF or one F-111?
- a PF or one A-20?
- a PF or one F-101?
Also, which is cheaper: a fully kitted out F-111 or a PF?
And sticking with costs, don't forget that to deploy an F-111 squadron requires three ships (carrier and two escorts). To deploy a PF flotilla requires a single ship (the tender). Also, you can't just toss an F-111 or two into a squadron; you can toss a PF or two into any squadron.
Honestly, I don't see where this even requires a difficult decision.
In the background fluff, the Feds didn't use gunboats because of the casualty rates they would force. They acknowledge even in the background that the decision is suboptimal. So, even the in-universe rationale is basically saying that taking PFs is the better decision from a firepower perspective.
TL;DR: Take the gunboats.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, April 14, 2022 - 09:59 am: Edit |
Jamey, Mike: thanks for the replies.
Jamey:
A follow-up question. When people in your group play with PFs, do they generally keep the boost packs or jettison them? I pretty much always keep my packs as I believe the six extra points of power more than compensates for the increased engine vulnerability. With the packs, I don't see the power requirements being much of a problem.
Mike:
Your point about F&E economics versus SFB is a good one. I had actually intended to say something about it but forgot. Strategic-level rules, including economics, can make some units much more or less useful than a simple consideration of their tactical capabilities might indicate.
| By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, April 14, 2022 - 10:22 am: Edit |
You should always keep PF packs till they are destroyed or very heavily damaged.
PF warp engines without packs take 6 to destroy.
On average Fed style PF engines (2 3-point engines) with packs take over 4.3 damage to destroy.
Use just 2 of the extra six points of power for reinforcement and you are actually more durable with packs and you have 4 extra power for whatever else you are doing.
| By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Thursday, April 14, 2022 - 01:42 pm: Edit |
As a note: the requirement for carriers to have their escorts is not something I'd consider a liability in the case of the Federation. Their escorts have phasers for days (with most including gatlings), generally have G-racks, can in some cases still have a couple photon torpedoes, and -- which may play into your campaign, depending on your campaign rules -- include considerable cargo stores.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |