Recently when, looking at the Technology Timeline, I noticed that in Y83 web loses 2 points of energy per hex per turn, and this is true until Y121. I don't have the Order of Battle for the early Tholians, but from what I have read about this time I infer that the Tholians didn't have very many ships available, and those ships are small.

My first likely bad idea is that, until some time shortly after Y121, webs be limited in length to no more than 18 hexes, whether linear or globular. My rationale is that with the few ships available, and those being small, the Tholians would be hard pressed just to maintain the 30 hexes of the outer ring of a wedding cake and the 18 hexes of the second ring as well. That's 96 points of power each turn just for maintenance, never mind reinforcement. Since it is energy cost possible but unrealistic for webs to be used for a 3 ring wedding cake in the early years, it would be plausible to make it a technological limit forbidding webs longer than 18 hexes.

My second likely bad idea goes the other way, perhaps sometime during the second x-tech epoch. With web efficiency at a high, larger ships available, jumbo and heavy web tenders available, and x-tech ships having more power than their non-advanced counterparts, the Tholians might have another web advancement allowing webs to be 42 hexes long. It would allow more stout static defenses for the Tholians while giving them an additional energy burden of 21 energy points per turn.

These two ideas would allow for web technology improvements in length over time to be had. They shouldn't negatively impact game play or canon at all being outside the normal years of play, and can add more spice to the canonical struggles of the Tholians.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 03, 2023 - 12:31 pm: Edit

John,

I meant to reply earlier, but then forgot.

As someone whose favorite empire is the Tholians, I don't hate your ideas. But really, I'm not sure they change anything.

First consider the idea of webs having a maximum length of 18 hexes in the Early Years time period. You're right about the Tholians only having a few small ships,which, combined with power requirements during that time, make a three-tier wedding cake totally impractical (in fact, impossible in most cases). In my opinion, the standard base defense during this period would be a two-tier cake, simply because the Tholians wouldn't have the power for a three-tier cake. So, effectively, you are proposing a rule to prohibit the Tholians from doing... what they were never going to do anyway. Okay... their might be some very unusual situations where the Tholians might be able to support a three-tier cake. But even in those (very rare) cases, I don't think it would be a good tactic. The power problems are just too daunting.

Now let's consider the late-era proposal for allowing a web 42 hexes long; enabling a four-tier wedding cake. With X-ships, the Tholians can certainly support such a four-tier structure. But at what cost? A 42-hex globular web at strength-35 would cost 367.5 BPV. For this much BPV you could buy, just to consider one example; a PAX (the photon torpedo version of the X-tech Archeo-Tholian heavy cruiser), give it two mech links and buy Arachnid-PWs for both links, add an additional "package" to your defensive minefield, and still have a few points left over. You say the fourth tier would make the Tholian defenses more "stout". I agree. But would it really make them more stout than adding an additional X-cruiser and two PFs to the existing defenses, and making the minefield stronger?

You could, of course, reduce the cost of the forth tier by making it less than strength-35. But if you make it too much less, the attackers will just blow through the web while only losing a few impulses of movement, before the defenders can strengthen it enough to stop them. And the larger perimeter of the fourth tier does spread the attackers out a bit more as they try to cover it. So their might be a few "edge cases" where buying a 42-hex web would strengthen the defenders more than the the equivalent cost in additional units (including mines). But I seriously doubt there are many such cases, and their may not be any at all.

So it seens to me that for the most part your "18-hex maximum" proposal for the EY forbids the Tholians from doing what they wouldn't do anyway. And your "42-hex maximum" proposal for the X-tech era allows the Tholians to do something they would not actually choose to do, even if allowed.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, April 03, 2023 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Alan, I wasn't trying to massively change the game or its balance at all.

We agree on the early years suggestion. There's no point in further conversation.

Your assessment of the late years suggestion breaks down with an invalid assumption. You assume that the Tholians will always have the option to trade web BPV points for other units. I don't make that assumption, and my suggestion wasn't written with that assumption in mind.

If you have a late years Tholian base and 500 BPV of ships to defend it with, do you want 3 rings or 4 of globular web around the base?

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, April 03, 2023 - 11:11 pm: Edit

John, how would your proposal work with G10.83? Presumably the 4th layer would be strength 0 at weapons status 0 but it's not clear how things would progress from there at higher weapons statuses. There appears to be two options:

#1 Assume that the strength totals do not change. This means any strength put into the 4th layer would come at the expense of the inner layers.

#2 Assume the the 4th layer follows the same progression as the other layers (increasing by 10 in each column) for at total of 30 at WS-3. However this would mean a much larger jump in the total (from column to column) then we currently see:

3 Layers:
WS-0 = 420
WS-1 = +540 total: 960
Ws-2 = +540 total: 1500
WS-3 = +390 total: 1890

4 layers:
WS-0 = 420
Ws-1 = +960 total: 1380
WS-2 = +960 total: 2340
WS-3 = +810 total: 3150

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, April 04, 2023 - 07:14 am: Edit

Douglas, my ideas are more to allow for a progression of web lengths over time, not a change in rule (G10.83) or any other. I understand your question, but see it more as a tactical decision more than a rules integration question.

My understanding of (G10.83) is that it more of a guideline with the totals in the chart being the limiting factors. Tactically, it may be better to put as much energy into the outer ring as possible and allow the available units to power the inner rings while strengthening the outer one.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 04, 2023 - 09:44 pm: Edit

John,

The calculation of 367.5 BPV for the 42-hex web is based on G10.82. Those points would certainly be applicable in any "Patrol Battle" where the players buy their forces. And for defined "Historical" scenarios, something like that will very likely figure into the scenario designer's calculations as he determines the designated forces. I suspect that simply adding in a fourth web ring, with no penalties, is very unlikely to make it past SPP and SVC.

So it's not really "Base plus 500 BPV of ships plus three tier wedding cake" versus "Base plus 500 BPV of ships plus four tier wedding cake" It's more like "Base plus 500 BPV of ships plus three tier wedding cake... plus "N" BPV bonus points"; or alternately "Base plus 500 BPV of ships plus four tier wedding cake"... minus "N" BPV penalty". And G10.82 is the only published source for assigning an actual value to "N". But somehow or other, that fourth tier will be payed for.

I also think you partially misunderstand G10.83. Note tha following from G10.834:

---

Quote:

The Tholian player may voluntarily reduce the strength of at-start webs to avoid paying the BPV penalty. As a tactical note, it would be better to reduce the strength of the inner web as this can be easily powered up by the base long before the enemy gets to it.

---

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, April 05, 2023 - 09:54 am: Edit

Alan, please read the first sentence of (G10.833). I take this, with (G10.834), as allowing the Tholian player to use his points to build the webs he wants, with the limits of(G10.833) and the (G10.83) totals. If I am correct, the only changes to be made in (G10.83) would be that before Yxxx (Early years) the first layer web points are subtracted from the total amount which may be used. There would be no additional points for a 4th layer giving the Tholians a tactical challenge.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, April 05, 2023 - 12:35 pm: Edit

John,

I've always understood G10.833 a lttle differently. I believe it applies to at-start webs other than globular webs.

For example, suppose for some hypothetical reason you were fighting in an asteroid field and wanted to start the battle (in which you were WS-1) with three linear (anchored to asteroids) 10-hex webs at strength-30, and a single 2 hex web, also at strength-30. This is 960 web points, as specified in the "Total" row under WS-1 in the G10.83 table. But that first sentence in G10.833 still forbids this initial set up.

I believe that the G10.83 table defines maximum at-start strength for globular webs, the last sentence in G10.833:

---

Quote:

In the case of the “buzz saw” (three spiral webs radiating from the base) all are treated as “2nd layer” webs.

---

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, April 05, 2023 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Alan, I think your understanding is stretching, or I'm not understanding your example. The math for the layers in (G10.83) perfectly match those of a 3-tier wedding cake at each weapons status.

Nothing within (G10.833) specifies, forbids, or implies any web type at all.

We may have to get a ruling on how this should be interpreted. I interpret (G10.83) as defining what the maximum web strengths may be and how many web points may be used at the given weapons status.

We may also need to have "wedding cake" defined. In any three tiered baked confectionery I've seen used at a marriage ceremony, the largest diameter layer was on the lowest level. The middle sized confectionery was in the middle height position, and the smallest diameter one was at the highest level. This parallels the chart in (G10.83). It may not be a Tholian wedding cake if the outer web has the greatest strength.

I believe according to the rules at WS-1 a 3-ring web with the outer ring at 25 aggregate strength points, a middle ring at 11 aggregate strength points, and an inner ring at 2 aggregate strength points is legal. The total adds up to the 960 web points of WS-1, and no web exceeds the 25 ASPs of the WS-1 3rd layer.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, April 06, 2023 - 02:13 am: Edit

(G10.831) implies that you can simply use the strength totals to customize your own web layout so long as none of the web exceeds the strengith given for the 3rd layer in (G10.83) as per (G10.833). I agree with John that a three-tier web in which the outer layer is the strongest might be considered a web arrangement "other than a wedding cake". Perhaps it could be called an "amphitheater".

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, April 06, 2023 - 09:01 am: Edit

Douglas, Amphitheater is good. What about "3-ring circus?"

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Thursday, April 06, 2023 - 11:40 am: Edit

I think for some people "3-ring circus" is already synonymous with the "wedding cake". I know "amphitheater" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue but I was trying to find a word or phrase that suggested "descending" as you move toward the center (as would be the case with an amphitheater) as opposed to ascending as you move toward the center (as would be the case with a wedding cake).

Maybe calling it the "stadium defense" (in reference to stadium seating) would get the same idea across.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, April 06, 2023 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Douglas, I was having fun with the 3-ring circus, but I really like stadium defense.