"It's the mines, I tell you! Always, with the mines!!" Attributed to unknown Orion Pirate Captain.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 09:59 am: Edit

Over in the Federation tactics thread, there is an ongoing discussion in which the relative degree of usefulness a given Alpha Octant empire might have in terms of "mine sweeping" in the absence of a minesweeper (or first-generation X-ship) was noted.

Rather than risk derailing that topic yet further than it has already been, I was wondering what empires, be they in Alpha or elsewhere, might also possess an innate "mine sweeping" capacity.


To give one example, the "lost empire" Paravians from SFB Module C6 have minesweeper variants which retain the full set of quantum wave torpedo launchers from their respective base hulls, due to how useful a standard-load QWT can be when used to sweep mines.

However, a QWT-armed non-minesweeper runs a 1 in 3 risk of losing the "splash" element; this would still be enough to destroy a small mine, but not quite enough to do the same to a large mine. One might have to fire an overloaded QWT to guarantee a kill against a large mine, which would divert warp power away from other things the "mine sweeping" Paravian ship might need to use for other things (such as shield reinforcement).


Beyond the Alpha Octant, it would appear that the Bolosco would have the advantage of using their integrated warp tractors to tractor a given mine at a 50% energy point discount; using radiation phasers in their phaser option mounts would seem to offer the best "mine sweeping" capacity, though they'd need to fire two PR-3s at a single large mine in order to guarantee a kill at Range 1.

There are some other interactions worth considering. The Alunda might find their whip cruiser to be a useful "mine sweeping" variant, since plasma whips can be used to target mines and do double damage against "unshielded" targets, all with no arming cost. In contrast, the weakness of dark matter pulsars might cause problems for the Souldra when trying to actually sweep mines, though they might instead consider their ability to simply "phase" past the minefield on the way to their target. While over in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, mass driver-armed empires might be hampered by the inability to use these weapons to sweep mines.

By Norman Dizon (Normandizon) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 10:41 am: Edit

As I'm sure you already know, the Imperium from Triangulum has built in mine capability (if I'm remembering the SSD correctly from Captain's Log)

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, July 09, 2019 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Well, you know, Gary, as they say: any ship can be a mine sweeper .... once.


()


Garth L. Getgen

By Kenneth Humpherys (Pmthecat) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 01:49 pm: Edit

There is the obvious choice of Lyrans/LDR. Only race that can send a squadron of 3 DW's to sweep a path at speed 25 and have them sustain no damage from a standard mine field package (excepting captor mines.)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Kenneth Humpherys:

Depends on how many NSMs the ESG fields of a given DW connect with on the same impulse. And if the currently active ESGs go down due to multiple contacts with more mines than it can handle, if there is an NSM or two in the next hex of movement it can get real nasty real fast.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Once a minefield is spotted, 20,000 KM separation and run at Warp 2.5 (speed 16) with a HET planned. Once the lead ESG is down (or just low enough not to take another mine, the lead ship drops its ESG and then HETs with the following ship raising its ESG (radius one). Both ships will have changed position by the time the ESG is raised and the second ship continues 'sweeping'. The third ship is in case the field is deeper than thought (or there were more mines).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, July 10, 2019 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Stack a some mines here and there if Lyrans are the neighboring empire to overwhlem the ESGs and damage or destroy the sweeper. Some captorr mines being nearby to fire upon a down shield will also be helpful.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 01:30 am: Edit

Not just the captor mines. The base behind the minefield could have hellbores which do wonders on the Lyran that crashed into several mines.

Supporting a minefield is one of the few times that ground based hellbores are worth the BPV.

By Jon Murdock (Xenocide) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 11:28 am: Edit

The few times I have built and anti-Lyran minefield I focused a lot of mines in a few hexes. Sure, it is easier to penetrate by conventional minesweeping but it plays havoc on ESG sweeping.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 02:16 pm: Edit

The point I was trying to make is that while a Lyran might think he can bust through a minefield at Speed 25, if the minefield is constructed with an eye to the Lyrans trying to breach it, it can get very messy, very fast. You need to be moving slowly enough to cycle the ESG fields of the next ship up when the first ship's ESGs get overloaded and collapse, and Speed 25 is just too fast for that.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandor) on Thursday, July 11, 2019 - 05:47 pm: Edit

You shoot the helbore on the impulse right before the lyran impacts the mine. The helbore automatically hits and then the ESG can not absorb the mine.

By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Thursday, July 18, 2019 - 02:37 am: Edit

This is why I prefer the STL for minesweeping as a Lyran.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, June 05, 2020 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Given that during the worst period of the Andro Invasions, the various empires had hunkered down to their core areas, what would you think is the minimum size for your "lone RTN sniffer" ship? Those ships are NOT going to be clashing with the neighboring empire fleets, they too are hunkered down...

I am thinking that you probably won't ever see anything smaller than a SR Cruiser based CVL, PFT survive more than a single discovery.

So what would you use?

BCV or BCS with some special sensors installed?
D6PFT?
CVA/ SCS with special sensors (like the SSCS)?
X pft?

MY OPINION (fwiw), is you choose the baddest thing you have that has both special sensors and as many attrition units as possible. And realize that any other ships assigned to that duty (like a frigate sized scout) are basically single use minesweepers...

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, June 05, 2020 - 06:03 pm: Edit

This may be outside of the normal scope of the game, but I see a potential problem with relying so much on attrition units. The RTN base, if it fears discovery, is going to send out a distress signal. The attacking Galactic ship may end up losing so much of its attack wing that it'll be inordinately vulnerable to the Andromedan ship responding to the base under attack.

Sure, if the base is already destroyed, it might seem a little petty, but for the Andromedans, it may mean saving the next base.

It may seem a little excessive, but having a lone PFT sniff out RTN bases, but NOT go after them, instead having a DNH led ten ship task force wait a bit behind for the call...

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, June 06, 2020 - 06:17 pm: Edit

You just have to either
1) Kill the base and the Andros will cut their losses and not show up.
2) Fail to kill the base, in that case you only have to arrive until your response task group arrives.
3) don't kill the base, the Andros show and you can't hold them long enough for the reinforcemets, you disengage.

And given that you can only have one hull, being an attrition unit carrier only makes sense.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, June 06, 2020 - 09:14 pm: Edit

Jeff, be careful, yelling for help may attract the wrong kind of attention depending on how close the 'help' is compared to the 'wrong help' …

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, December 25, 2020 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Mike, IIRC the SSCS was purpose built to hunt for elements of the RTN. You would obviously want the baddest ship possible so it could survive success at finding an Andro base. The smallest ship you would want would be a PFT which had some punch of its own in addition to the PFs. Division Control ships such as the Klingon UD7 would be the next smallest.

Jeff, the hunting ships went alone due to the small energy signatures of the Andro RTN bases, and the Andros frequently would relocate discovered bases before reinforcements could arrive and/or they would attack the ship which found the base. The hunting ship would have only one shot at destroying the base, so maximum firepower delivered immediately as a hit-and-run would be better than overwhelming firepower delivered soon. The attrition units are what would keep the ship alive and make possible the base's destruction.

It's possible that the stationary RTN base had a smaller electronic signature than the moving searching ship and was aware of the searching ship and was monitoring its progress. If so, the distress call would be made when discovery was eminent starting the clock on reinforcement or transportation arrival. Your mentioned task force would likely find nothing, or an Andro mothership or two. It's better to risk one ship than several on one base. Also, if there were several ships searching, there likely wouldn't be enough task forces available for multiple discoveries.

More needs to be learned about the RTN. It's possible that forcing the SATBs to be moved by the Andros would hinder the local RTN for a while and destroying them would blunt the Andros locally for a longer while. An unreinforced SATB is vulnerable to destruction by a lone PFT once found.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, February 05, 2021 - 09:25 am: Edit

I wasn't sure if there was a better thread to ask this or not, but has anyone here tried using any of the various "Juggernaut Empire" ships (frigate, destroyer, etc.) offered in various issues of Captains Log and as seen on Shapeways?

At a glance, one potential issue might be the ships' high explosion ratings. It's one thing for this to be the case in a "monster" scenario; I wonder if this might be more problematic if one were to attempt to develop the Juggernaut armada into a more "campaign compatible" invasion force, akin to the Andromedans or the Souldra.

Perhaps, in a setup where the Juggernauts are to be treated as a "faction" rather than a "monster", the explosion strengths could be lowered if necessary?

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 02:47 am: Edit

Given how deadly the Juggernauts are, the explosion strengths could help to stop players "superstacking" their ships. An enemy fleet blows up a ship in your stack, and for each survivor there's a 1 in 6 chance the explosion is off the #4...it could trigger a hilarious chain reaction, hee hee

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 10:33 am: Edit

I have no issues with a single, non-core, empire effectively using a variant of the original ship explosion rules.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 11:34 am: Edit

Yes, I have played a game with multiple Juggernaut ships. If the rules for the Juggernaut were not so fixed, they would have won easily.

We had a brave captain that "got the Juggernaut's attention", i.e. forced the rotating shield to respond to an attack on a forward shield while the our other ships alpha'd the unprotected rear #4 shield. Once the "big guy" blew up, the other Juggernaut ships fled.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 12:39 pm: Edit

I suspect that the shield isn't forced to rotate after the incident shown in Captain's Log #1, if I recall, didn't the juggernaut in the second scenario ignore that rule?

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 07:17 pm: Edit

Goodness, Captain Log #1?? I haven't played SFB that long. I do not know.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 06, 2021 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Juggernaut Beta was accounted for in the cover story and supporting SFB scenario from Captain's Log #33. Along with adding rules for Shriek missiles, it is noted that Beta had disabled the rotating shield lock function, so could set the facing at its discretion.

The Juggernaut ships in the Fire in the Deep scenario from Captain's Log #41 have this function disabled also. (The scenario itself does not specify if the ships involved were in fact Juggernaut types, though the accompanying fiction piece is written as if they were.)

-----

One potential concern I might have with leaving the explosion strengths the same for a "campaign compatible" Juggernaut fleet would be how it might affect fixed installations. An enemy warship might try to keep out of a Juggernaut ship's explosion radius; an enemy battle station or starbase would have more trouble keeping such explosions at arm's length.

But then, if a Juggernaut "admiralty" makes a habit of sacrificing their ships in that manner, even their smaller ones, they might find themselves running out of ships with which to carry out their overall campaign.