| Subtopic | Posts | Updated | ||
| Archive through August 26, 2023 | 25 | 08/28 12:34pm |
| By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, August 27, 2023 - 10:25 am: Edit |
What the tholians really NEED are transporter relays they can imbed in web.
So you crash your D6 mauler into the outer web? The tholians then crack the facing shield and transport a dozen Marine BPs aboard your ship. And do so again next turn...
A Base station has how many BPs? Transporters?
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 27, 2023 - 08:22 pm: Edit |
Ehh...
What the Tholians really NEED is to stop putting web casters on bases and return to all-phaser armament. Every one of the limited number of web casters the Tholians can build/maintain should committed to their warships, especially the X-cruisers and dreadnoughts.
Plus, replacing the web casters on a base with phaser-4s actually makes the base stronger, unless the base is not protected by web.
So... why is the base not protected by web? Especially, why would a star base not be protected by web? ESPECIALLY would an X-tech star base not be protected by web???
| By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 08:17 am: Edit |
Yeah Alan, that is also true. ASSUMING that base and ship WC are the same gizmo.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 09:41 am: Edit |
Mike; Okay, let's say they are completely different gizmos and removing web casters from star bases would not increase ship-deployable web casters at all.*
There remains the issue of web casters being almost useless** on any base that is itself surrounded by web, which is how Tholian bases are supposed to fight. Removing them from a star base would allow the reinstallation (or initial installation for X-tech star bases) of six additional phaser-4s, which are far more useful.
*This contention seems to me unlikely. Even if the webcasters mounted on bases aren't interchangeable with the web casters on ships, the must use some of the same components. So let's suppose stripping the six web casters from a star base only adds two or three for the mobile fleet elements. It would still be worth doing.
** "Almost" useless because once the enemy reached the innermost ring, they could be fired as web fists. But phaser-4s would be useful against enemies still on the outer rings, and against enemies on the innermost ring would do more damage than a web fist for less power expended.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 12:34 pm: Edit |
I agree that P-4s are more useful than WCs to Tholian bases in all cases. The web caster is a Y184 refit on the starbases. I didn't check other bases' refit dates. That date makes me think it's an anti-Seltorian measure. Without that refit, the WCs are P-4s.
The only utilities I can think of for WCs on bases is to disrupt formations, temporarily block gaps in webs, or rapidly reestablishing lost rings. An inner ring with asteroid anchors could be opened up using (G10.1184) to allow the base's WCs to fire through the gap creating a temporary barrier between the base and the enemy. Multiple barriers could be cast in this way.
Using (E12.21) with asteroid anchors and ships as mobile anchors, the outer ring could be cast in a single turn and have some strength. The 2 inner rings wouldn't need ships. All of this is true for ship mounted WCs, too.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 02:58 pm: Edit |
Well, that would explain how the Tholian got kicked out of their home galaxy in the first place...
Quote:That date makes me think it's an anti-Seltorian measure.
I can't think of a case where the Tholians would actually want to do this, if they had set up their defenses properly in the first place...
Quote:An inner ring with asteroid anchors could be opened up using (G10.1184) to allow the base's WCs to fire through the gap creating a temporary barrier between the base and the enemy. Multiple barriers could be cast in this way.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 03:02 pm: Edit |
John,
I hope my response to your previous post didn't come across as too flippant. But seriously, can you provide an example where your G10.1184 tactic is actually better than standard globular webs and 18 phaser-4s rather than 12?
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 07:42 pm: Edit |
Alan, I can handle flippant. In fact I can enjoy it, too.
Please re-read the first sentence of my last post. My position hasn't changed.
You may be mistaking globular webs as the only way to have a completely closed ring. It is not. It is also not the most secure way to have a closed ring, nor is a globular web the fastest way to spin a closed ring, nor spin a ring and raise its aggregated strength as fast as possible. It is only the least costly way to spin a closed ring, and the quickest way to spin an unplanned ring in some random piece of open space, such as for a pinwheel, or for when asteroids are not available.
Bases are far from unplanned, and should be stocked with asteroids for anchors. Assume a hypothetical situation in which a Tholian SB has had all 3 rings dissolved during combat, and it and its fleet have chased away the attackers before they could break apart any asteroids. How long would it take you to re-spin the 30 hexes of an outer globular ring? Go ahead and choose your absolute best ships to use for this. Just for fun we'll have a race. Remember you do not have asteroids but I do, or you have them but choose not to use them in favor of globular webs. With 6 ships all positioned adjacent to the outer ring asteroids and all of them in the hex either clockwise from the base's perspective, or counter clockwise, I can do it in 1 impulse. Better yet, in that same impulse I can have that ring up to an ASP of 10 ready to receive reinforcement energy. If that ring was cast by those ships and the SB still has its 6 WCs, I can also have a middle ring of strength 12 cast that same impulse without the use of ships. If those ships were to kindly move 2 hexes closer to the base, and all clockwise or counter clockwise adjacent to the middle ring asteroids, the resulting middle web strength could be 16 if I chose to wait a few impulses after the outer web was cast. The next turn that inner ring would be cast to strength 35. Even if you used 6 Tholian battleships you couldn't match that. Oh, yeah, I did it with far less energy, too. Since we already agreed, in another conversation, that an adequately defended wedding cake will require multiple rounds of combat to defeat, you can expect a return of the attackers in a few turns with fresh ships. My base has 3 rings back up being frantically charged to the 35 ASP maximum, possibly making it in all 3 rings before the enemy returns requiring him to peel that onion all over again. Your base has 1 or 2 rings up at best, and the middle positioned ring is very weak still. The enemy will penetrate that 18 hex web ring and you'll soon have a range 1 slug fest. Good luck! You'll need it.
The preceding paragraph is not a defense of bases having the web caster refit. It is a defense of Tholian bases having web anchor asteroids in their webs.
"If it ain't broken, don't fix it!" It was broken. I fixed it.
In addition, assume the same SB in the same post combat no webs situation before the 312th arrived meaning no web casters. The Tholians can use more than 2 ships per ring to reestablish their wedding cake by spinning 6 segments of linear web per ring using asteroids as anchors while reinforcing those linear webs during the spinning of them. Again, I have more rings at higher ASPs than you do.
The only time a globular web is a base's friend is if there are missing asteroids in the anchor positions. Even then, unless 3 nonadjacent asteroids are broken up, the partial ring reestablished can provide some protection to Tholian ships powering the webs from blind spots. Asteroids are bases' friends more than globular webs are.
(G10.1184) isn't a great tactic for defending the base, but it is useful in allowing your Operation Nutcracker Kzinti and Gorn allies entry and egress. You can't do that with globular webs, either.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 07:54 pm: Edit |
Well, I've got several disagreements with your latest post, but don't have time to go into them in any detail right now. I hope to post a better answer tomorrow. For now I'll just say
Are you serious? I mean, are you serious??? You really think I believe that?
Quote:You may be mistaking globular webs as the only way to have a completely closed ring.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, August 28, 2023 - 08:14 pm: Edit |
Alan, I expected you to have disagreements. I look forward to your post. I also recommend you bring your rulebook. You'll need it.
Either you're thinking globular webs are the only way to have a closed web, or you're stuck in the simulator universe of (S8.0) which is in a science fiction simulator board game; a simulation within a simulation.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 29, 2023 - 03:10 pm: Edit |
John;
Rather than respond to your points in one long post, I am going to have to respond to one or two at a time, in a series of shorter posts. Let's get started.
Of course, Operation Nutcracker occurred before web caster refits had been installed on any bases (in this galaxy) or Archeo-Tholian ships. Yes, the 312th had arrived. But the only web casters the Tholians had in service at that time were on the Neo-Tholian ships. So properly speaking Operation Nutcracker is irrelevant to the question of web casters on Tholian bases. Of course, your point has some legitimacy in considering Gorn or Kzinti support against some later Klingon incursion, or for a player campaign set in he appropriate period. But by the time web casters on Tholian bases are a consideration, the Tholians have a generally easier time getting Gorn or Kzinti (or other allies) through the globular rings of a weddng cake, because of the availability of X-ships.
Quote:(G10.1184) isn't a great tactic for defending the base, but it is useful in allowing your Operation Nutcracker Kzinti and Gorn allies entry and egress. You can't do that with globular webs, either.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 29, 2023 - 09:15 pm: Edit |
Another point about Gorn or Kzinti allies being unable to cross (strong) rings in a wedding cake: I submit that, most of the time, that doesn't actually make much difference. But it depends on how you think Gorn or Kzinti ships should be used as part of a wedding cake defense.
Most direct fire weapons cannot affect targets on the other side of a web. But seeking weapons can. They cross webs like non-Tholian ships do; expending movement points equal to the strength of the web (within a period of 32 consecutive impulses). Also, plasma torpedoes are weakened by expending movement points in web, just as they would be weakened expending movement points travelling through space. This means that, usually, the most efficient way to use Gorns or Kzinti in wedding cake defense is in the ring of open hexes between the innermost and middle globular webs, with the outermost web at full strength but the middle web very weak. Here they are protected from Klingon (or other attacker) direct fire weapons and cannot use their own direct fire weapons either. But because the middle web, behind which they are hiding, is weak; it provides very little hindrance to the Gorn/Kzinti seeking weapons launched against Klingons trapped in the outer web. That weak middle web would also not provide much hinderance to any Klingon drones, except that the Klingons are trapped in the still-strong outer web.
In many (I believe most) battles there would not be a need for the Gorns or Kzinti to ever leave that open ring between the innermost and middle webs. But suppose for some reason the situation did make it advisable for them to move onto the middle ring to use their own phasers/disruptors/plasma bolts/carronades? Because the middle web ring is so weak in this case, the Gorns/Kzinti would be able to retreat back behind it afterwards anyway. Once the battle is over, the webs will decay back to zero anyway (and maintained that way by the web buoys) and the allied ships could depart without any problems.
There are a couple of cases when the allies might wish to leave the webs immediately, and there are no friendly ships that can generate a strong enough tractor to use G10.56. One possible case would be if the Klingons decide the battle is lost and want to retreat their survivors, and the Tholians+allies want to pursue. But I believe it will be extremely rare that exactly the right circumstances will occur that this will "make a differnce". Approximately 99% of the time, any Klingon ships capable of disengagement by accelertaion will escape anyway; and Klingon ships that can only disengage by separation (whether due to battle damage or because for some reason the Klingons brought such a ship against a Tholian base) will be caught and captured or killed anyway.
Then there's sublight evasion. That may allow a Klingon to escape in a "scenario" sense. But what does it mean in a strategic sense? A klingon ship without warp engines is within Tholian space, near a major base, and the Tholians know approximately where it is. In a strategic context, is it really likely that Klingon will ever see home?
More later.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, August 30, 2023 - 12:31 am: Edit |
Alan, the first point (Operation Nutcracker allies) is irrelevant. I was talking about the differences between globular and linear hex webs and why the linear hex webs with asteroids are better. Both types have always been available. Dates are irrelevant, and web casters are not needed to make a gap.
The second point is true if you take my point out of context. I'm aware of the rules for pulling ships out of the web. A caveat to that is the 2 units must be able to generate the total needed energy. At times that may not be possible due to size, damage, and/or tactical considerations. In a case of multiple ships you wish to allow to pass, you'll need 35 energy points and a tractor beam for each ship you wish to allow in or out. However, I was talking about opening a gap in the web. A single PC could open and close the door for 8 energy points or less allowing a fleet to pass. You can't use (G10.1184) with a globular web.
Unless I missed something, everything you come up with for a globular web and tractors is available for a hex web with asteroids. (G10.1184) isn't mandatory.
Take all the time you need to respond. My work week begins Wednesday and I plan on riding a bicycle. That adds about 2.5 hours to my day.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 30, 2023 - 07:21 am: Edit |
John;
I hadn't commented on this before because I kept forgetting about it when I was actually posting, but I believe the procedure you are describing is illegal because you misinterpret G10.1184 (and G10.1181). Both of these rules explicitly refer to end anchor points. End anchors are defined by G10.1331 and the anchors of a hexagonal web connecting six linear segments in a closed arrangement are not end anchors, they are corner anchors, as defined by G10.1333. And you can't use G10.1184 with corner anchors.
Now, there is a way to do approximately what you want based on G10.1186. But either that will collapse two entire legs of the hexagon, requiring substantially more time and power to reestablish the full enclosure, or you will need to use three Tholian ships rather than one - still possible but more of a nuisance than you seem to think.
But in any case, your tactic only works for the middle web, not the outermost one. And it wouldn't work for the outermost web even if G10.1184 applied to intermediate and corner anchors, instead of only end anchors. Here's why.
Suppose your outermost web in a wedding cake is a hexagonal arrangement of linear webs. anchored by asteroids, rather than a true globular web. And suppose for some reason the Klingons are worried about the tactic you describe for opening and then reclosing "gaps" in that web; perhaps to allow allied ships easy access. But they have a lot of time available. (Note that Scenario SH006, the Assault on the Holdfast scenario, has no time limit.) They circle the base at long range (75 hexes from the outermost web ring if they have plenty of phaser-1s, 50 hexes from the outermost ring if the force contains mostly phaser-2s) and gradually bombard the asteroid anchors to rubble. It will take hundreds of turns to accomplish this, perhaps even several thousand. But the Tholians have no way to protect those asteroids. The Klingon ships, on the other hand, can generally "brick" against any long-range Tholian phaser fire. Eventually the asteroids are destroyed. Now, since the are web anchors, the web still holds them together. But if you try to use your tactic to create a "gate" in the web ring for allies to pass through, the "sack of rocks" disperses when relieved of anchor status and the Tholians cannot reestablish the hexagonal web (except by using a ship or a web anchor buoy, either of which is likely to be blasted into oblivion in short order).
This Klingon tactic won't work against a middle web that is hexagonal. They can't attack it until they actually enter the outermost web ring, and the Tholian phasers may have some impact on Klingon survival at that point. But the outermost ring is another matter.
More later.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, August 30, 2023 - 10:52 pm: Edit |
Alan, I caught the corner anchor mistake after I posted, but not before you replied.
The 3 ship method is still effective and costs about as much as a 35-point tractor, but it works for several ships, not just 1. It doesn’t take that long to open or close the gap either. The end web strength is 33, and you still can't do this with a globular web. You need asteroids.
You mistakenly said the tactic (I assume you mean opening and closing a gap) won't work on the outer web. That is true only after all of the corner anchor asteroids have been pulverized. Until then, it works fine. One thing is certain. If the Klingons do try this, the element of surprise is lost. Remember, in (SH6.0), the Tholians have reinforcements coming. That fact lights a fire under the Klingons seats unless all they want to accomplish is asteroid pulverization.
I actually alluded to this Klingon tactic in my description of the GBWG. But in my suggestion it's in the early years, the Tholian ships are swift and powerful compared to their Klingon counterparts.
I can think of some scenarios in which this gap tactic can be used. One would be a squadron of Kzinti and/or Gorn ships being pursued by a Klingon/Romulan fleet. If they can enter the outer web, the attacking fleet ships entering the outer web would be slaughtered.
Overall, I think you've swallowed the asteroid pill. Nothing in 2 posts of yours supports globular webs.
There's one thing I will admit: there's something the Gorns and Kzinits should never encounter, buzzsaws.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 30, 2023 - 11:48 pm: Edit |
John;
Another point; one of your claimed advantages for a wedding cake based on hexagonal arrangements of linear web, versus globular webs, is the ease of establishing the hexagonal-based wedding cake in the first place.
But I don't think this is really very much of an issue. Suppose the Tholians wish to establish a new battle station somewhere, and are concerned about Klingon interference. They need to set up a mobile base first, and then gradually upgrade it to a BATS. This requires the commitment of expensive logistical elements as well as the mobile base itself. Either the Tholians conclude the risk is too great and set up the mobile base elsewhere, or they provide the base-construction elements with cover from major warships. They wouldn't send the MB there in the first place unless they were confident the accompanying battle fleet could see off any marauding Klingons (given that the vast majority of Klingon forces are thousands of parsecs away, confronting the far larger Fed, Kzinti, and Hydran fleets). Now, according to background text, it takes several hours for the positional stabilizers of the mobile base to "lock". That battle fleet can lay and power up a full three-tier globular-based wedding cake in far less time than that.
The notion that establishing the globular-based wedding cake takes too long doesn't really hold up well. The time necessary to establish the wedding cake is actually one of the shortest time elements in the establishment of a base.
You also argue in your 7:42 PM post from 28 August that if an assault results in all three web rings dissolving, the Tholians could reestablish them more quickly with asteroids than they could re-lay and power up new globular webs.
WILL NOT HAPPEN! The outermost ring? Sure, that's plausible. But then the Klingons need to actually position themselves on the middle ring to destroy or drive back any Tholian ships powering it. This puts them at three hexes from the base's phaser-4s. By now the Tholians would have had more than enough time to bring the middle web ring to strength 35, so the Klingons are stuck there, at point blank range from the base's phaser-4s (plus range-3 from the phaser-1s of any surviving ships and PFs that have fallen back to the center of the wedding cake, which is still pretty good). At this range the Tholians can one-shot vaporize a DX or a dreadnought. Heck, depending on the specific base involved and the number of phaser-1s the Tholians can bring to bear, they may be able to one-shot vaporize the B-10. The Klingon fleet is very likely to retreat, or die, long before the middle web goes down. But let's suppose the Klingon fleet is truly massive and can take that level of pounding long enough to advance to the innermost web. The Klingons are now exchanging fire with a base (a star base according to your assumption in your above post) at range-1. Whether the Klingons win or lose, the battle will be over long before the innermost web ring disintegrates. If the Klingons win, the base is destroyed and any webs, or lack thereof, at that location become irrelevant. If the base wins, it can easily prevent the innermost ring from disintegrating. In fact, since the Klingons have advanced from the middle ring to the innermost many turns before the middle ring will have decayed to zero, the Tholian can, if they have either a surviving ship or a PF with web generators, probably save the middle ring as well.
So,
The outermost ring? Plausible. The middle ring? Very unlikely, but... possible. The innermost ring? I say again, WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Quote:Assume a hypothetical situation in which a Tholian SB has had all 3 rings dissolved during combat...
No, you can't. Check (E12.52) WEB. Particularly, note the sentence that says "Web casters cannot create web in a hex that is adjacent to another web, even to a web hex being created on the same impulse by a different source." Since the cast webs cannot be adjacent, you will always need at least some ships support to lay web to fill in the gaps.
Quote:If that ring was cast by those ships and the SB still has its 6 WCs, I can also have a middle ring of strength 12 cast that same impulse without the use of ships.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 31, 2023 - 12:10 am: Edit |
Well, yeah... I thought that was obvious from the context. The Klingons won't even dream of attacking a wedding cake-defended Tholian base unless they are confident their mobile elements are vastly stronger than Tholian mobile elements in the vicinity. Otherwise it's suicide. But that being the case, the Klingons have time to work their long range bombardment of the asteroid anchors. The only way the Tholians could prevent it is to send out mobile elements to engage the Klingons, who in this situation are, as stated, vastly stronger.
Quote:You mistakenly said the tactic (I assume you mean opening and closing a gap) won't work on the outer web. That is true only after all of the corner anchor asteroids have been pulverized.
Let's suppose the Tholian base has adequate warning and ship support to bring the outermost web to full strength before the Gorns/Kzinti arrive; but that neither the Tholian nor the allied ships have any ships that can generate a tractor strong enough to pull the allies through it.
Quote:I can think of some scenarios in which this gap tactic can be used. One would be a squadron of Kzinti and/or Gorn ships being pursued by a Klingon/Romulan fleet. If they can enter the outer web, the attacking fleet ships entering the outer web would be slaughtered.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 09:30 am: Edit |
Alan, even though I do like fish, I'd like some variety beyond red herring. As Gold 5 said in Star Wars: A New Hope, "Stay on target."
It doesn’t matter if the likelihood of all three rings dissolving is something less than zero. The point is that I needed a HYPOTHETICAL (like I said in the example) excuse to allow web casters to fire through the inner ring and for the inner ring to be respun or recast. Even with your correcting me on rules (I told you you'd need the rulebook), you're proving me correct that webs are better with asteroids. With 6 ships, all with WCs as well as the SB, the Tholians can reestablish the outer 2 web layers in 2 turns, and possibly 1 turn if timed correctly. Remind me again of how long it took you to spin those globular webs and which ships you used.
Your tactical analysis of what the Gorns and Kzinits might do is again off target. Make up your own excuse as to why bypassing the base is not an option and get them inside. Maybe their refuelling tanker was destroyed and they're flying on tritium vapors and need to dock with the base to refuel before they can participate in combat. (As an aside thought for a scenario, what if the base wasn’t expecting the Gorns and Kzinits and the 3 rings were at WS-3 readiness? How fast could the Tholians reduce the middle ring for seeking weapons use without dissolving it entirely?)
As for the notion of how long reestablishing a wedding cake takes, it may not have been clear, but the enemy is coming back momentarily to capitalize on the webs' being dissolved. Time is an issue. With or without web casters, using asteroids is faster.
As for the new base, it's a planned event. The Tholians should have time to accelerate the necessary asteroids up to relativistic speeds to be where they should be when they should be there. If the asteroids are a little bit late, they can be nudged into the corners of the globular webs and given corner anchor status. I don't remember anything forbidding globular webs from being converted into linear webs. The timing may be important, but as it's not being done during combat, who cares how long it takes?
The context of your saying a tactic wouldn’t work because the Klingons can pulverize rocks from a distance given time was missed in my understanding of how long it would take to do 2400 total damage points from 50 hexes away with 9-10 ships. You miss context as well; think of our recently mentioned Gorn and Kzinti friends.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 01:33 pm: Edit |
Can't be done, at least by the base itself. The innermost ring will block the base's web caster fire. If the Tholians have web caster-equipped ships stationed there (meaning those web casters are not supporting battles in open space, where they are tremendously useful), those ships might move outside the web to try to reestablish the outermost web in the way you describe. But how many web caster ships are you committing to that base? You don't have all that many to begin with, you have other bases, and those ships are, as stated, really useful to your mobile fleet elements. Plus, if the Klingons are returning "momentarily to capitalize on the webs' being dissolved", then moving your ships outside the web to try to reestablish the outer web ring risks exposing those ships to Klingon fire.
Quote:With 6 ships, all with WCs as well as the SB, the Tholians can reestablish the outer 2 web layers in 2 turns, and possibly 1 turn if timed correctly.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 04:58 pm: Edit |
Alan, you're being obtuse. I simply do not know if it's being done unintentionally or deliberate.
I Said I wanted something other than red herrings. That post was nothing other than red herrings.
For someone who claims not to type that quickly, you have just made a post in which each and every key stroke was a waste of time.
What's worse is you're wasting my time in a disrespectful manner
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 05:27 pm: Edit |
OK, let's crunch some numbers on the time it will take for the Klinogns to pulverize six asteroid anchors from "50 hexes away". I'll only use "9-10 ships", my force will not include X-ships, and it will be legal under the S8 rules for "Patrol Battles".
First, a couple of points; A major base with a large defending fleet cannot generally be taken in a single battle. Command rating limits will mean the attackers just can't bring enough firepower to overcome both the defending fleet and the base. What the attackers can do is weaken the defenders, withdraw when their losses become too heavy, and bring in the next wave. An important part of this process is trying to use other attacking fleets to try to prevent, or at least minimize, the reinforcements the defenders can send to the base. So part of the base assault campaign, within a strategic context, will be battles between "blockading" attackers and defenders trying to win through to reinforce the base. The actual destruction of the base (assuming a large defense force was already there, or so close the attackers coudln't prevent it from reaching the base) is really best thought of as the last battle in a "mini-campaign". The Tholian web makes this dynamic even more extreme, but it exists for other empire as well.
So far, I don't think I've said anything particularly controversial. I had been under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that we had both agreed about this in our previous discussion of wedding cake versus buzzsaw. With that in mind, think of this as the opening phase of that "mini-campaign". The Klingons have deployed fleets to "seal off" the base and prevent (or at least delay) any reinforcements from arriving. The Klingon fleet in question (which is poorly constituted to actually assault the web itself - that will be the job of a different fleet) is there to pulverize the asteroid anchors for the outermost ring of the wedding cake, perhaps because they are worried about Tholian coordination with allies).
You said "50 hexes" and "9-10 ships". So lets crunch some numbers. We'll start with a C10 heavy dreadnought as flagship; 12 phaser-1s. Deputy flag will be a C7 BCH; 10 phaser-1s. We have a cruiser squadron commanded by a D7L command cruiser, leading two D7K and two D5K; a total of 19 phaser-1s and 16 phaser-2s. Hmm, that's 7 ships. Let's add in another D5K (4 phaser-1s) escorted by an F5WK (5 phaser-1s... yes, the F5WK actually has more phaser-1s than either a D7K or a D5K...). Our 10th ship will be a scout but I'm not going to worry about it's phasers. It's mission is to provide EW support.
Note that this is not a "maximum" fleet, nor is it a good choice for actually assaulting the wedding cake. My goal was to create a fleet strong enough that the Tholians will have difficulty massing enough mobie units to threaten it, while possessing a lot of phaser firepower to pulverize the asteroids from long range.
So:
C10 - 12 phaser-1s
C7 - 10 phaser-1s
D7L - 5 phaser-1s, 4 phaser-2s
2xD7K - 6 phaser-1s, 12 phaser-2s
3xD5K - 12 phaser-1s
F5WK - 5 phaser-1s
Total; 50 phaser-1s, 16 phaser-2s
At 50 hexes a phaser-1 averages 1/3 points per turn, or 162/3 for all the phaser-1s.
At 50 hexes a phaser-2 averages 1/6 points per turn, or 22/3 for all the phaser-2s.
The klingons average a bit more than 19 damage per turn from range-50. It will take them approximately 21 turns to pulverise an asteroid anchor, or 126 turns to pulverize tham all. There is also travel time of course, since they will have to move to engage "offside" anchors, and they may do a bit less damage per turn because of phaser arcs. But unless the Tholians can bring in enough mobile forces to actually engage this (pretty strong) fleet, the Klingons should have no difficulty pulverizing all outer anchors within 150 turns or less.
I submit that, though this seems long by the standards of "typical" SFB scenarios, it isn't so long in the "context" (since you are fond of that word) of a campaign to take down a late period (X-ships and PFs) Tholian star base.
More later.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 05:41 pm: Edit |
John,
I'm not trying to be "disrespectful", though I would point out that in our discussion of wedding cake versus buzz saw, you questioned my "integrity". What is that if not an implication that I was lying?
From your 1:45 PM post on 15 June:
Quote:Before, I gave you kudos for intellectual integrity. Those kudos now have an asterisk next to them. When I requested that you “please share your tactical ideas for attacking and defending both types of web patterns”, your response of, “I don't really have much to say about defending a buzzsaw because... why would I ever do that?” is a cop out. I do not respect cop outs. It is a valid mental exercise to take the opposite position that you carry and defend it. I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself now.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 05:44 pm: Edit |
Grateful as I am for a "chance to redeem" myself, I'm going to bow out of this discussion for a while. It should come as a relief to you as well, since you won't have to exchange posts with someone who is obtuse, disrespectful, and has questionable (or at last "asterisked") integrity.
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 05:57 pm: Edit |
I have been reading these posts with a lot of interest.
I went into SFBOl and tried to find out how fast I could build a wedding cake with asteroids. A webcaster can only make 5 hex webs mas. It is 6 hexes from anchor to anchor. However, with six ships and 6 casters You could do it. Anchor a 4 hex web on each asteroid and a ship. Then the ships extend the web by one hex and connect them together. I think that it legal by web building rules.
The center web would be even faster and stronger. By using 6 ships and 2 web hexes and extending.
Then my thoughts went to why would I have webcasters instead of phaser-4s. Two phaser-4 are much better when defending behind a web. Shoot You cannot even use the webcaster except as a way to reinforce the web.
Now in the Home Galaxy. A base is a hub for commerce and ship repair. For all kinds of things. The Tholians needed things brought to those bases. Surrounded by web would mean you needed to give the supply ships pass web capabilities. Not a good idea to give to subject races.
Build a partial wedding cake all set up with openings that, if need be, can be closed with two ships and a caster. This also leaves it possible for the most trusted species to enter the defenses if need be. This would be a good reason to have Webcasters on a base.
When a base is orbiting a planet. Any static web would block of access to the planet. How can a wedding cake go around that. A few orbiting rocks and a couple of webcasters. Could throw up a web very quickly to protect the base and planet.
Just my two cents worth here.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, September 01, 2023 - 08:50 pm: Edit |
Gregory, all of that looks correct.
Consider this idea of using 3 ships as Alan pointed out. Put one ship in the hex of a corner asteroid and a ship in the web hexes on either side. The ship with the corner asteroid assumes the anchor status fron the asteroid, and the other 2 ships assume intermediate anchor status. Once this is done the corner anchor ship can drop its anchor status without returning it to the asteroid. The hex of web in the corner dissolves and the intermediate anchor ships prevent the web from dissolving all the way to the next asteroid corner anchor. The Tholians allows passage into the web wof whatever ships they choose, and then the ship in the asteroid hex spins a single hex of web to close the gap.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, September 04, 2023 - 04:25 pm: Edit |
Alan, you wrote "I'm not trying to be "disrespectful", though I would point out that in our discussion of wedding cake versus buzz saw, you questioned my "integrity". What is that if not an implication that I was lying?
1. It is a repetition of your misrepresenting my words by omitting the word "intellectual" which I put in front of "integrity".
2. It is solid evidence that you do not fully read what is written, even when you copy and paste specific quotes. It is supporting evidence that you do not read for understanding.
3. It is evidence that your command of the English language isn't as great as mine by your not understanding what "intellectual integrity" means. The term doesn't impugn your honesty, but rather your completeness of a response.
I have a number 4., but even though I fully believe that something which is true cannot be insulting, it would come closest to feeling as such.
Alan, you may return any time you wish. If/When you do, please read completely what I write. If you don't understand something, ask. If you misunderstand something and I explain it, take the explanation at that meaning. Also, don't get distracted from the point being discussed or try to distract from that point. That is a red herring argument, and I will not fall for it.
I will respond in time to the game issues on the discussion table.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |