A few weeks ago I posted several comments in the Tholian Tactics section, addressing which enemies I thought pose the greatest threat to a prepared Tholian wedding cake. One of the points I discussed is that, purely from a technology standpoint, the Tholians are much better at holding bases against Seltorian assault in this galaxy than they were in M81. There are several reasons for this but the two most important ones are PFs and X-ships.

PFs
Tholian PFs can carry web generators. Two PFs per "standard" flotilla can carry web generators, if I am understanding (K0.32) MIXED-FLOTILLAS, and especially (K0.323) correctly. But the amount of web-reinforcing energy the Tholians can provide through PFs is actually much better than that. Put mech-links on some of the defending ships to make them "Casual PFTs" and give them Arachnid-Ws (or even better, Arachnid-PWs) as their casual flotillas. (Note that casual PFTs can not carry other "versions" of PFs but can carry combat "variants".) Also, while the base's standard flotilla would only have two PFs with web generators, it could form pinwheels around those two, allowing the entire energy of all six PFs (minus housekeeping - including the energy necessary to hold the pinwheels together) to reinforce the web. This is a lot more energy than either a dreadnought or an X-cruiser (or even a battleship, if the Tholians ever had any in this galaxy) could supply. And since (E15.13) TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS explicitly prohibits Seltorian PFs from carrying web breakers, the Selts have no good way to counter the massive increase in web reinforcing energy made available by Tholian PFs.

X-ships
Tholian X-ships can put a lot more reinforcing energy into the web than their standard-tech counterparts can. But Seltorian X-ships (if any had been completed and deployed in this galaxy) are not intrinsically better than their standard-tech counterparts at destroying that web. There is an X-tech special firing mode for the web breaker called "ANCHOR BREAK MODE". But as the name implies, it is not useful against the globular web of a typical wedding cake. In fact, ANCHOR BREAK MODE can temporarily cancel the anchor status of Tholian units, but doesn't work against asteroid anchors. So it also doesn't help against a "buzz saw" defense, should the Tholians choose that instead of a wedding cake. As with PFs, deploying Tholian X-ships in a base defense greatly improves the Tholian ability to maintain the webs but deploying Seltorian X-ships in the assault force doesn't adequately counter that.

Allowing a web breaker variant of the Seltorian PFs would go a long way to making the Seltorians a threat to defended Tholian bases again. But it would require a rule change, since as I mentioned, E15.13 currently prohibits that. So another option would be to introduce "assault" versions of the standard Selt warships, reducing particle cannon and phaser armament for increased numbers of web breakers. Alternate-armament variants of warships are fairly common in SFB, with Klingon or Federation ships that reduce direct fire weaponry in favor of more drones, Romulan or Gorn cruisers that swap out two S-torps for a single R-torp, carrier escorts that lose heavy weaponry in exchange for an enhanced capability to engage large numbers of small targets, and so on. For the Seltorians, I particularly like the idea of basing their web assault variants on booms rather than the base hulls, as this should allow the Hive Ship, or another production facility if one were established, to quickly convert standard warships to web assault variants, or vice versa, by swapping out booms. This would be rather like the Romulan modular Sparrowhawks and Skyhawks and would allow the Selt to quickly optimize their fleet for open space combat or for assaulting defended bases, as the strategic situation dictated.

I have always thought (and this is just personal speculation - I have no idea what ADB's interpretation is) that web breakers are probably rather large and bulky, based on the very limited numbers that Seltorian ships carry and the E15.13 prohibition against PFs carrying them at all. (Yes, the Battlewagon carries a fair number of them. But that ship is size class 1; bigger than the B-10. If a web breaker were only as large as a phaser-1 or a particle cannon, the Battlewagon should be able to carry a lot more of them.) So I propose that the web breaker-equipped "assault booms" would lose one phaser-1 and one particle cannon in exchange for a single web beaker. For the frigate or DD boom, replace the FA particle cannon with a web breaker and delete the FX phaser-1. For the CL/CA boom, replace the FA particle cannon with a web breaker and delete one of the two phaser-1s.

It should be obvious that these "web assault" variants of the Selt warhsips are weak in open space combat against Tholian warships. The primary "anti-ship" weaponry of a Seltorian CA consists of four particle cannons and eight phaser-1s. The assault variant would only have two PC and six phaser-1s. The two additional web breakers are hardly adequate compenstaion if the ship is intercepted in open space by a Tholian cruiser. The Selts would have to carefully manage their forces and ensure their web assault ships had adequate "standard warship" protection to keep this from happening. For the same reason, if in a non-historical campaign the Selts ever start producing DNs, BCHs, and X-ships in this galaxy, I doubt that they would employ assault variants of these hulls. Production of both SC2 ships and X-ships will be limited and the Selts would need these to counter Tholian dreadnoughts and X-ships. And the proportions of the standard CA, CL, DD, and FF hulls that had web breaker booms could be ramped up or down by swapping out those booms, as required by the strategic situation.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, June 04, 2022 - 02:02 pm: Edit

While such an idea seems VERY reasonable to we Mammals*, I don't think the thought could cross the mind of a Seltorian engineer. I think the only way it could occur to them would be if they had ships from the Home Galaxy with Shield Crackers replacing Particle Cannons.

The designs originally allotted to them by their (former) masters were meant for capturing rebellious freighters. Their weapon suites were designed around chasing down the recalcitrant ships, battering the shields down to the brink of collapse with Particle Cannon and Phaser fire (small increments of damage as to not risk "Overpenetration"), with Shield Crackers meant to take down the final wisps of shields (with NO risk of internal damage) as a prelude to the swarm of Marines.

While it might take an additional minute or three, using a larger battery of Sheild Crackers after a Phaser strike (or Phaser and small number of Particle Cannons) would do the job quite nearly as efficiently with LOWER risk of overpenetration of the shields would seem to make having Shield Crackers in the booms a no=brainer, but their (former) Tholian masters never outfitted the Seltorian ships that way.

From that, I'd guess there was some technical problem that made it unfeaseable.

(* This is not meeant as a slight to any reptilian people who may participate in this thread; I just made the assumption that we're all mammals here. If I'm in error, I apologize.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, June 04, 2022 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I would have to disagree. The first time a Selt force assaults a Tholian BATS with a PF flotilla, and gets clobbered because the attack force doesn't have enough web breakers to get the job done, it would surely occur to... someone (possibly a Klingon observer) that:

The current Selt ships don't have enough web breakers to take down current (PFs as part of the defense) Tholian bases.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, June 04, 2022 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Of course, for Alpha bases of operations, the Klingons could suggest the idea of assault booms.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, June 04, 2022 - 08:43 pm: Edit

There is something I believe you are all missing. I do not believe the web breaker was designed to crack defensive web structures. I believe it was designed to take down cast web in a open space battle.

A single web caster can put up a 50 point web at full strength and that up to 10 hexes. Outside of that the strength goes down. Example in the rule book below.

EXAMPLE-CAST WEB: A Seltorian CA (which mounts two web
breakers) is engaged in battle with a Neo-Tholian NCL in the Neutral
Zone. The Seltorian CA is approaching the Neo-Tholian ship at high
speed. The Neo-Tholian ship fires its web caster with maximum
power at a range of seven, creating a web four hexes across, each
with a strength of twelve points. (It has a total of 50 aggregate
strength points, although only 48 count.) The Seltorian cruiser, which
cannot avoid the web and does not wish to risk an HET, waits until
the last moment and fires its web breakers at Range 1, rolling a two
and a four. The die roll of two causes eighteen points, and the die roll
of four causes fourteen points, for a total of 32 points of reduced web
strength. These 32 points are subtracted from the 50 points, leaving
eighteen. This leaves the original twelve-point free standing web at a
strength of four points, enough to slow down the Seltorians but not
enough to cause a breakdown due to high-speed impact.
have

All Seltorian ships even the frigates Have Web breakers. In a even BPV battle there are enough Web breakers to cancel out Webcasters. Were ships will not be forced to break down.

While assaulting fixed web installations I would as the Selts do what alpha races do. Bring more ships then the Tholians can handle. First take out the Mine field in a sector. Crash the web kill ships supporting the web and so on. Of course I have read some were they made assault ships with huge amounts of Web breakers to take down such defense. SFBOL has the battle wagon with 16 WB. With 9 being the max in arc. A min of 90 but more likely over a 100 points. Move in fire 7 or 9, stop tac, tac and fire 7 more. Add in support ships. The web will go down and fast.

You will lose ships closing in and taking out mines. Including sweeping them. forcing away defending ships as well. But when the battle wagon gets in place no more web.

Alpha PFs would be great attrition units for such doings. As dead warriors? We can just hatch more. would this work in a even BPV battle not sure at all. Might be fun to try. Of course there were no battle wagons in the Alpha.... and the Selts did not take out the Holdfast.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, June 05, 2022 - 01:09 am: Edit

I am not going to say "no" to the overall concept at this time but I won't approve DD/FF versions of this. I await Steve Petrick's input.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, June 05, 2022 - 10:53 am: Edit

Speaking of our favorite absentee overlord...

How is he doing and any guesses when he might be able to return, even if part time?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 06, 2022 - 03:10 am: Edit

If you mean Steve Petrick, he was at the office three days last week.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, June 06, 2022 - 07:25 am: Edit

Awesome.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 06, 2022 - 11:02 am: Edit

I would be quite wary of trying to use the Battlewagon and Assaultwagon as reasons to adjust the shield cracker/web breaker's Annex #8B status.

-----

Firstly, from the Fire in the Deep scenario in Captain's Log #41, (SL288.46) has the Seltorian ships in this scenario swap out their shield crackers for phaser-1s on a 1-for-1 basis. In this instance, this is due to the Seltorian expedition in question realizing that shield crackers are essentially useless against the waves of Juggernaut Empire warships they are (postulated as) facing. Note also that the accompanying story fiction states (or postulates) that the Seltorian engineers could not replace the shield crackers with particle cannons instead, as they could not make the power connections work.

On a side note, given that shield crackers/web breakers cannot function inside a nebula under (E15.373), I wouldn't be surprised if the earliest instance this swapout was done was during the pre-Revolt era, when the Seltorians (or one or more of the pre-Seltorian enforcer species) were ordered in to flush out a given Nebuline home colony.

Speaking of the Nebuline: any change to the Annex #8B status for the shield cracker would have a knock-on effect for the Nebuline-built M81 Pirate ships currently previewed for both Star Fleet Battles and for Federation Commander in Captain's Log #40.

Right now, the OGR and OGD can choose to install a phaser-1/-2/-3, a particle cannon, or a shield cracker in any single option mount; I would consider requiring two centerline adjacent option mounts to install a single shield cracker to be an unfair burden to their operations.

Rather, I would consider the BW and AW as the outliers here - not least due to them installing weapons into hangar bays that were not originally designed to handle them. Bear in mind that while they are similar to bases in many respects, neither the Hive nor Nest ship base hulls have positional stabilizers; the "dynamic warp balances" required to allow these ships to move under their own power, however slowly, are likely such that the BW and AW variants are perhaps about as good as one is going to get here.

-----

By the way, in the same manner that a given M81 Pirate force can choose between particle cannons and shield crackers to alter between "smash" and "grab" missions, perhaps these proposed "siege" booms were originally used in the home galaxy by the Seltorians - and/or a pre-Seltorian enforcer species - to maximize shield cracker usage in boarding actions against enemy installations.

Be it enemy bases in open space the Tholians would have targeted during the Great Martial War, or perhaps a civilian base station [as noted under (R1.35-7HG) in the Tholian Master Starship Book] used by pre-Revolt rebels which the enforcers wished to capture relatively intact (so as to interrogate the survivors and to press the base back into service with a replacement crew of subjugated species).

-----

So, I would consider two "combat variants" to have been possible historically:

The first being the phaser-1s-for-shield crackers/web breakers variant listed in (SL288.46), for use against "unorthodox" enemies like Juggernauts and Nebuline home colonies;

And the second being the shield crackers/web breakers-for-particle cannons variants proposed above (but on a 1-for-1 basis, with the base hulls' phaser-1 complements left intact), for use during or after the Revolt against Tholian webs, or pre-Revolt against enemy bases in open space.

Unlike the case with M81 Pirate option mounts, but in keeping with the Fire in the Deep story fiction, I would suggest making the SC/WB-to-PC swap a strictly one-way option for the Seltorians (and/or a pre-Seltorian enforcer). As in, no swapping out a Seltorian ship's SC/WBs for more PCs.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, June 06, 2022 - 12:48 pm: Edit

First, I want to join Mike Grafton in expressing my hope that SPP will continue to recover and will soon return to this board.

Second, I want to address Gary Carney's recent comments. He puts too much emphasis, I think, on my comments about even the Battlewagon not carrying as many web breakers as it seems like it ought to be able to carry, arguing that most of those web breakers are installed in bays not designed to carry them.

Those bays were designed to construct entire warships so even if they weren't intended to mount weapons directly, you would think the Selts could do better than that.

And related to that, why are web breakers so rare in the Seltorian fleet as a whole? Note that this proposal isn't about the Nebuline, or Selts versus Juggernaughts, or anything like that. It's about the fact that in the Alpha Sector, the Seltorians have enormous difficulty deploying enough web breakers to threaten even a moderately well defended (to include a PF flotilla, and some casual PFs carried on mech-links by defending ships) Tholian BATS. And if the Tholian defense includes X-ships, the situation is even worse. And oh, by the way, we haven't even mentioned the various "web tender" ships yet. All in all, the Tholians are MUCH better at maintaining web in this galaxy than they were in M81 but the Selt PFs and X-ships don't have any countervailing improved ability to break those webs. The Selts need some way to field more web breakers (in this galaxy, not M81) than is currently the case.

The fact that the Selts can swap out shield crackers for phaser-1s on a 1-for-1 basis against the Juggernaughts does not necessarily mean they can swap out phaser-1s for web breakers 1-for-1. It might be, for example, that the space required for a shield cracker is somewhat larger than the space required for a phaser-1 (though not enough to fit two phaser-1s). Thus, it might be that you could pull out a shield cracker and replace it with a phaser-1 (and waste a bit of space) but if the position were originally designed to hold a phaser-1, you would need to remove it and something else to mount a web breaker.

If you could easily replace phaser-1s with web breakers on a 1-for-1 basis, I would expect to see a lot more web breakers available to the Seltorians once they realized how much reinforcing energy is available to the Tholians in this galaxy. Also, if you could do that, why does E15.13 prohibit Seltorian PFs from carrying them? So I'm going to continue to argue for this proposal until SVC and SPP decide one way or the other.

Finally, I want to address Vandar's post (from Saturday) about the Battlewagon, but that will have to wait until later this afternoon or this evening.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, June 06, 2022 - 12:57 pm: Edit

(This portion of my post was added after reading Alan Trevor's response above.)

My understanding was that, if one was to avoid the need to remove both a phaser-1 and a particle cannon from a given boom to make room for a given shield cracker/web breaker - which I would argue should be the case, based on the available data thus far - then only the PC would need to be removed in order to make way for the added SC/WB. So one would be able to retain more of the boom's intrinsic phaser firepower in this instance.

To clarify, I did not (and would not) suggest that the Seltorians could swap out phaser-1s for either shield crackers/web breakers or for particle cannons.

And, yes, while the main focus of your proposal is to address combat against web in the Alpha Octant, it does not seem unreasonable to consider whether or not there might have been equivalent booms with shield crackers installed back in the pre-Revolt Home Galaxy - or, indeed, if the Seltorians might have used web breaker booms in the course of the Revolt itself.

-----

(This portion of my post was written before reading Alan Trevor's response above.)

One aspect of this proposal might be to see if, or how, these "mission variants" might later be implemented over in Federation and Empire.

As shown in the current Seltorian SIT, most Seltorian unit types have a "B" factor; the rules governing web breakers are printed under (326.0) in F&E Minor Empires. For example, the combat factors for the "standard" Seltorian heavy cruiser are 9-8B (or 4B if crippled).

It is noted under (326.213) that certain units count as multiple "web breaker units": for example, the Battlewagon counts as six web breaker units, or as three WB units when crippled. This is useful for combat against web, as well as for ship capture attempts when the web breakers are used as shield crackers under (326.242).

So, perhaps a web breaker variant might count as two "web breaker units" (but still as only one "WB unit" when crippled), yet at the cost of reducing the ship's attack factors.

Also, is one were to assume that a phaser variant were to lose the "B" factors entirely, at what point would the installation of phaser-1s in place of web breakers lead to an adjustment of the ship's attack and/or defence factors?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, June 06, 2022 - 02:12 pm: Edit

I approve of the Seltroian Web Breaer Booms. Steven P.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 06, 2022 - 03:22 pm: Edit

I will put a CA with these booms into the July 10 newsletter for SFB and FC.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 09:04 am: Edit

Perhaps the Selts were close to creating something like a Webbreaker Suicide Shuttle bomb? A remote controlled PF with a pair of webbreakers and no crew or other weapons (wave hands)...

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 10:07 am: Edit

..or perhaps a Suicide Freighter (R1.33) or a Death Rider PF (K7.0) (both could do a webbreaker damage explosion)

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 11:21 am: Edit

..perhaps the webbreaker explosion is sustained (for 1 extra turn with the PF, and 3 extra turns with the SF). Also maybe something like a webtender that drains web strength.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 11:39 am: Edit

SPP: Welcome Back!

Vandar (I meant to post this yesterday evening but was too tired when I got home from work): I wouldn't count too much on the Battlewagon as the solution to the Seltorian's problems; part of the solution, yes; but only part.

Historically the Selts only deployed one Hive Ship to the Milky Way (at least within the time period covered). If they convert it to a Battlewagon, they are basically stopping production of new warships. And every time they commit it to an assault on a BATS (let alone a Sector Base or Starbase or an X-tech BATS), they risk having the ship crippled or destroyed. The Battlewagon may play a role in a final assault on Tholia itself, but how do the Selts reach that point in the first place? They need the Hive Ship producing Selt forces so how do they successfully attack the border BATS (let alone the Sector Bases, etc.)?

In a non-historical campaign which assumes the Selts are much more strongly esatblished in the Milky Way, they may have several Hive Ships, as well as DNs, BCHs, and/or X-ships to escort them if some are converted to Battlewagons. The Selts are obviously in a better position here. But I think we can assume that even here the Hive Ships/Battlewagons will be very rare. And even with DNs or X-ships in support, they are at risk attacking even a moderately-well defended Tholian base. For one thing, Tholian space is very compact. Even if no X-ships are committed specifically to defending the base (and it wouldn't be at all surprising if the base had at least a PCX or two), the nearest Tholian X-squadron is not going to be that far away and is likely to come screaming in at the speed of stink once a Hive Ship/Battlewagon is identified. Even if the Selt force (augmented by DN/BCH/X-ships) destroys the BATS, it's going to take major damage and may not be able to get back to safety in time to escape the vengeance of the Tholian response force. Some web breaker-armed assault booms (less effective against the Tholian ships but able to take down the BATS' defending webs more quickly - enabling earlier egress) would at least be a useful option for the Seltorians to have.

That's how I see it, at any rate. YMM, as they say, V.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 11:42 am: Edit

Wayne,

I'm not averse to something like that for the Selts but it belongs in a separate topic.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 01:10 pm: Edit

I happily retract my opposition!

Welcome back, SPP!

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Alan as i posted. They did not have and could not get the battlewagon in Alpha.

What I am saying tactically the web breaker on ships was not designed to take out fixed web installations. In fact, it was a change in the shield cracker. They were able to use the Sheild cracker for breaking webs.

So first you add extra Sheild crackers them convert them to Web Breakers. You would want to break the web at long range. preferably were the phasers will not be as bad.

Looking in weapon status a pinwheel can have a 10 str web at start.

They add 36 to the web this turn (24 -6 DET +36 = 54) for a strength 18 web. without EW or arming weapons. The celts have 2 CA and fire at range 5 from the web. 4 WB average out to 40. Drops the web to 14.

If the Tholians fired weapons at the Selts. The power available will drop the next turn. Any use of EW will drop the power as well. (a Pinwheel can use EW generated by one ship)

As I see it the web will go down.

Any one see something wrong with the math and such?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, June 07, 2022 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Vandar;

The problem is that you are wrong, unless I misunderstand what you are saying, about the web breaker's role in Seltorian tactics, as well as about the Battlewagon.

Yes, the web breaker was a development of the shield cracker, but the Seltorians absolutely did use it for base assaults as well as for countering web casters in open space. (E15.33) WEB BREAKER COMBAT RESOLUTION TABLE contains two examples, showing how to calculate web strength after the Selts have used web breakers on it. The first example is EXAMPLE-CAST WEB and describes a Selt CA using web casters against a web cast by a Tholian NCL. But the second example under E15.33 is EXAMPLE-FIXED WEB and describes a joint Klingon-Seltorian assault on a Tholian BATS. Yes, the Selts can "crash" the web of a wedding cake, like the normal Alpha empires. Under some circumstances that is the better option than trying to degrade the web over time with web breaker fire. But if the Selts have enough web breakers to bring the web down from longer range, then that is usually the better option. Sometimes they will combine the two; using web breakers to degrade the web while also sending units into the web to damage or drive off the Tholian ships reinforcing it. (PFs are good for this as, tactically, losing them doesn't reduce the number of web breakers and, strategically, they are cheap to replace. The downside is the Tholian defending minefield.)

About the battlewagon; (R15.44) Battlewagon (BW) (in Module R12 - Unusual Ships) states "The Seltorians never used the Burning Torch of Vengeance in this manner but it is believed they could have." Presumably the reason they didn't is because it was the only source of warship producuction that they had in Alpha. But in a non-historical campaign where the Selts are well established here, that might not apply. Even historically, the Selts apparently had the technical capability to convert their Hive Ship to a Battlewagon in this galaxy, had it been appropriate for them to do so.

So yes, I believe you are mistaken about web breakers and the battlewagon, unless, as I said, I am misunderstanding your point.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, June 08, 2022 - 12:41 am: Edit

Vandar;

Leaving your numbers aside (and I do think there's a problem with them), I have another - minor - objection to your last post. It concerns the pinwheel. Just because the Tholians (or anyone else) can use a certain tactic, that doesn't mean they should use it. In particular, I don't think the pinwheel should be a "go to" Tholian tactic. In most cases, I think the Tholians are better offf keeping their freedom to maneuver. The pinwheel is something they should use IF they have a specific reason to do so.

As it happens, I think wedding cake defense against the Selts is one of those cases when they do have a specific reason to use the pinwheel. Against a Klingon (or other "normal" Alpha empire), the Tholians only need to worry about "natural" degradation of the webs. So any PFs should (usually) not form a pinwheel but should dart out from behind the middle web ring, reinforce the outer ring, then fall back behind the middle ring again. But because of the Seltorian web breakers, the Tholian will have to put a lot more energy into the outer ring to maintain it. And since only two PFs in a "standard" flotilla have web generators, the pinwheel gives them the ability to draw on the energy of the other four PFs as well, if necessary. So in that case a pinwheel is useful for them. But your example in your 10:09 PM post didn't give any reason for the Tholians to be in pinwheel, even if weapon status allowed them to be in that formation. It just seems to me to be a mistake to assume pinwheel in any tactical example, unless you provide a reason why the Tholians would use it in that particular situation. Because in most situations, the disadvantages of pinwheel will outweigh the advantages.

Just my .02 quatloos worth.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, June 08, 2022 - 10:48 am: Edit

I did not say the Tholians were being smart I was just wondering if the Selts could bring it down at range before the Tholians can hurt them with phaser fire thru the web. My main question was and is was i doing the Math right on the web strength. It has been a long time since I built webs.

You all keep going back to a wedding cake. I am trying to go to a smaller battle to see what can happen. A full wedding cake assault will take days to play. Even on SFBOl keeping track of everything is a lot to deal with.

The talk here is about adding more web breakers to ships. So they can break down webs. With a Web breaker boom. replacing PCs with WBs. With Klingon Help I am sure they can do just that. As they built Multi boomed ships as well like the NCA.

Can a fleet do it at range? In the Milky Way they did not have a shipyard other than the Burning Torch. So could not risk it.

However with a battle wagon and fleet of ships. Can they knock it down at a safe range. If You built NCAs with a Web breaker boom in the center. No phasers or PCs. Just 2 more WBs. You could just swap out all the phasers and PCs in the booms of a standard CA. For a specialty ship to blow down webs. (Like a Mauler) Giving you 6 web breakers on a standard 2 boom CA or 8 on a NCA (3 boom CA). Great for knocking down shields as well. So adding a few more transporters and barracks could be fun.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, June 08, 2022 - 11:18 am: Edit

---

Quote:

You all keep going back to a wedding cake. I am trying to go to a smaller battle to see what can happen.

---

---

Quote:

A full wedding cake assault will take days to play. Even on SFBOl keeping track of everything is a lot to deal with.

---

---

Quote:

However with a battle wagon and fleet of ships. Can they knock it down at a safe range.

---