Archive through July 02, 2023
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board: New Ships: R07: THOLIAN PROPOSALS: Ground Based Tractor Beam: Archive through July 02, 2023
By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, June 20, 2023 - 10:11 am: Edit

Stewart, ESGs cannot be projected into web hexes. They cannot set off any mines in web hexes. If they could, the mine blast affects everything in the mines hex except web, so the ESG would absorb the mines strength, and if it weren't strong enough, would damage the appropriate shield of the ship and/or do internal damage.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, June 23, 2023 - 10:38 pm: Edit

I kept meaning to get back to this topic, to address some points I had glossed over in my 5:08 AM post from 18 June. But "real life" issues kept getting in the way. I will try to post something more this weekend, though it probably won't be as long as the 18 June post was.

In brief, I intend to discuss some ideas I have about how the Tholians might make the process I described in that post more costly for the Klingons. But you will not be surprised to hear that I still think a wedding cake is the superior option. If the Tholians commit enough resources (assuming they even... have... enough resources) to execute some of the tactics I will try to discuss, they have enough to make a properly defended wedding cake pretty nearly inpregnable against any attacker other than the Andromedans.

More later (I hope...)

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, June 24, 2023 - 01:24 pm: Edit

I do not think it is making the base impregnable. It is How many ships will be destroyed taking it. You fight the Tholians in web. Ships blow up.

How many ships could the Klingons lose before it weakens their navy. To the point where the Kzinties and Hydrans attack. Or even the Federation taking some planets as well.

The cost of a wedding cake in web points can be over 700 BPV with asteroids. Add Minefields a few phaser 4 ground bases. A few ships to maintain the web.

The klingons would need a 12-ship fleet to take the base. If you take it to multiple assaults? How many ships will be involved. How many will the Klingons lose?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, June 24, 2023 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Vandar;

I've got too many topics to address and not enough time...

The next (comparatively) detailed post I want to make will discuss things I think the Tholians can do to make the buzzsaw less vulnerable to the sort of attack I described in my 5:08 AM post from 18 June. But that's "less" vulnerable. I still think the wedding cake is stronger.

But based on your comment:

Quote:

The cost of a wedding cake in web points can be over 700 BPV with asteroids. Add Minefields a few phaser 4 ground bases. A few ships to maintain the web.

you and I appear to have very different ideas about how to defend a wedding cake. Sooner or later (probably later, I regret to say) I hope to post a more detailed description of how I think a wedding cake defense should be conducted. All I will say for now is... why are you buying asteroids at all? You don't need them at all just to construct/maintain a wedding cake. Yes, you can put additional phaser-IV ground bases on them. But I believe that is poor use of resources. There are other things that are much more cost-effective. (At least that's what I will try to argue, whenever I get around to it...)

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, June 24, 2023 - 05:16 pm: Edit

As to why asteroids may be included could be that it is easier to construct a complete wedding cake with them than without them should an enemy be near and able to attack before the entire ring can be finished. If necessary, the web can be anchored to an asteroid. To construct a full ring without asteroids risks the spinning unit being destroyed causing the collapse of the entire web.

Also, Alan, the purpose of this conversation is to debate the merits of both types of web, not to convince anyone that one is better than the other.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Sunday, June 25, 2023 - 10:06 am: Edit

Note that when you are "Pricing" out your defenses, the BPV cost is there to BALANCE the combat.

A darn asteroid doesn't cost almost as much as a Police ship. A hundred mines as much as a frigate/ destroyer. A web (basically just power) doesn't cost as much (or more) than a cruiser or two...

That is the point of the asteroids, mines, web, etc. You get more combat power for your "dollars" than you would when you just buy ships.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, June 25, 2023 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Mike, good point!

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, June 25, 2023 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Mike,

I agree, up to a point. But I think you can take that argument too far. Consider the following, from (M6.0) MINEFIELDS:

Quote:

The strength of a minefield is in direct proportion to the number of mines included in it, and mines are expensive. Further, minefields cannot be left in place for decades (or even months) without many individual mines suffering mechanical breakdown (or enemy snooping).

I submit that the references to mines being expensive (not as expensive as ships, or even fighters... but you need to buy a lot of mines) and to mines breaking down over time, indicate that setting up extensive minefields around a large number of bases is still a significant cost.

And this gets at one of the points of disagreement between John Christiansen and me, I think. A minefield can be cost effective for defending a fixed location, but that's all it can do. Its effects are even more localized tthe base itself. The base not only defends its own location, the special sensors enable it to survey large volumes of space. And its acts as a logistics node for ships/PFs/fighters; enabling it to project power far beyond the range of its own weapons. Even a very strong minefield gives you none of that capability, It defends its own location, and... that's it. So when you look at just defending one base, an extensive minefield looks like a good buy. But if you have to defend a half dozen separate bases, the cost mounts up quickly. Better, in my opinion, to use a scheme that doesn't require an extensive minefield (pehaps deploying a moderate minefield at the one or two most threatened/most critical loctions) and using the resources thus saved to upgrade the mobile forces, which can be deployed wherever the strategic situation requires; Klingon front, Romulan front, even supporting a very limited offensive outside Tholian space - perhaps to attack a Klingon logistics node supporting operations against the Holdfast, or even - if they can find it - attacking the Hive Ship.

John,

I could almost... almost... but your argument from your 5:16PM post yesterday if we were discussing a mobile base that had just been deployed and wasn't even fully operational (positional stabilizers not yet locked). But an operational BATS (or even a mere Base Station)? It's been there for weeks, maybe months. And the Tholians haven't found the time to set up a proper wedding cake yet. Seems... unlikely... to me.

More later. I still need to talk about some of the things I might do (as a Tholian defending a buzzsaw) to at least make the atack I described in my 18 June post more difficult and costly for the Klingons.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, June 26, 2023 - 12:19 am: Edit

Alan, I could have been more explicit. I meant to suggest that in previous rounds of combat the outer web(s) may have dissolved due to extended lack of reinforcement for extended periods of time. In any case, what I was thinking of is a violation of the web rules.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, June 26, 2023 - 12:35 am: Edit

Defending the Buzzsaw:

In my 5:08 AM post from 18 June, I described a method for attacking a buzzsaw in which the Klingons take advantage of the web's reducing the effectiveness of Tholian explosive mines. I tried to show why I consider this a weakness in the wedding cake, which allows the Klingons to attack the base taking fewer overall losses than one might expect.

Although I didn't go into details, I was assuming a buzzsaw with a minefield consisting of either 2 or 3 "standard" (as defined by (M6.2) TYPICAL MINEFIELD) minefield packages, with one exception. I was assuming the Tholians had purchased a number of additional command detonators. I chose 2 or 3 standard minefield packages based on John Christiansen's comment in his 12:18 PM post from 17 June, indicating that he regarded that as an appropriately sized minefield for a BATS defense.

One thing the Tholians could do would be to simply buy more minefield packages. But I believe there are two problems here. One is that you still have the limitation of one command detonated mine per hex. So it might take more turns to sweep all automatic mines from the passage between the buzzsaw strands, resulting in more turns of phaser fire from the base and higher Klingon losses. But the end result is the same. The base will go down to a well coordinated Klingon assault.

The other issue is cost. Adding an additional package or two (plus additional command detonators) to one base may not seem like much. But do that for half a dozen or more bases and the costs mount up. And it's not just the cost of the mines. Although this hasn't been mentioned yet, there's also the matter of supporting infrastructure and... minelayers. Suppose the Tholians have 5 border BATS and two Starbases (which I believe are the numbers from F&E), and want to defend them with buzzsaws (and extensive minefields). If each BATS has 2-3 standard packages and each Starbase has 6, that's somewhere around 25 minefield packages the Tholians need to maintain (not counting Tholia itself). In my 4:03 PM post above, I quoted a passage from the rules that discussed mines suffering breakdowns over time. So the Tholians need to constantly replenish their minefields, even in the absence of enemy activity. Now, we don't know how many minelayers would actually be required to keep these fields at combat strength. But surely it's a larger number than would be the case if the Tholians based defense of the Holdfast on wedding cakes, augmented by modest minefields in a few of the most critical locations.

So, is there a buzzsaw option that gives more "bang for the buck"; that causes more problems for the Klingons than simply increasing the number of packages and buying more command detonators? Well... maybe. But it requires the use of "non-standard" minefields. From (M5.3) CHAIN CONTROLLED MINES

Quote:

(M5.31) USE: Chain controlled mines are used primarily in remote border areas away from bases.

Note that while the quoted passage says chain controlled mine are used primarily away from bases, there is no rule that actually prohibits deploying them around bases.

Alas, it is getting late and I have mentioned previously how slow a typist I am. More later (maybe Monday, maybe Tuesday). But as a "heads up", using chain controlled (including "deadman") mines in the base defense might offer a way around the problem of only one command detonated mine per hex. You are allowed one chain controlled mine per hex (which might be a deadman mine). But is this in addition to the one command detonated mine per hex, or instead of it? I don't know. There is wording in some rules that suggests the "in addition" interpretation, and wording elsewhere suggesting the "instead" interpretation. I had previously meant to submit a question to SPP but never got around to it, since it would require hunting down references in several different rules to make sure I had "all my ducks in line". But I will say for now that IF a single hex can contain both a command detonated mine and a chain (which might be deadman) mine, then each hex of that critically important passage the Klingons will need to pass down in order to attack the base itself, can contain two mines that cannot be swept by ordinary means. This won't stop the Klingons cold but it will certainly increase their losses before they reach a point from which they can hit the base.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, June 26, 2023 - 07:09 am: Edit

For the sake of clarity, the rules which would be violated by my idea are:

(G10.12) GLOBULAR WEB: ".... There is no way to convert a linear web into a globular web."

(G10.125) Globular web cannot be reinforced; it must remain at zero strength until the circle is closed and it is anchored to itself. Each globular web hex must be adjacent to two (only two) web hexes.

My idea was to build a globular web in sections outlined by asteroids, reinforcing it if necessary to prevent its dissolving by "(G10.43) NEW WEB: A newly laid web hex is at zero strength (G10.3). It will dissolve in seven turns (224 impulses) if not reinforced to strength one. Thereafter it can be reinforced as per the rules. This also applies to web that has deteriorated to strength zero." and eventually closing the loop.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, June 26, 2023 - 05:38 pm: Edit

JC, what you're proposing is just linear web with anchors, not a globular one, as once reinforced it no longer qualifies as globular.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, June 27, 2023 - 09:52 am: Edit

Alan, quick question. Has your opinion on 42 hex length webs changed since we last conversed about them?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, June 27, 2023 - 11:20 am: Edit

Stewart, I get that now. I was supposing that the globular web could be spun in segments by 1-2 PCs, reinforced to a degree before it dissolved, and continued to be spun until the circle could be completed and closed. This violates the rules.

Mathematically, 2 PCs can not spin the 30 hex outer web layer of a wedding cake. It would require more than the time available before the web would dissolve. The rules also prohibit 2 or more pairs of ships spinning segments to be connected as a globular web. I checked the rules for the movement of docked ships, and that also prohibits a 30 hex globular web as the max speed is 2 hexes per turn. I was thinking that 1 PC could dock to and transfer power to a second so that the effective speed could be 3 or more, but alas no dice.

This is a weakness of globular webs for wedding cakes. In a multi scenario mini-campaign setting, once the attacker causes a ring to weaken to the point of dissolving, it's far too difficult for the Tholians to reestablish that ring.

This also adds backup for my new rules topic, " 2 likely bad ideas for Tholian webs" in which I suggested that the early years Tholians may not have had the technological ability for 30 hex webs. That topic suggests new rules for webs allowing for the technological advancement in web lengths.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, June 27, 2023 - 01:56 pm: Edit

John,

Short answer; it depends on the type of defense.

For a wedding cake, no. If you're talking about an S8-style Patrol Scenario, those extra 42 hexes come with a very hefty BPV penalty and I think those points are better spent on other thibgs. In a campaign setting... well, I don't think the costs in (G10.82) COST: really work for a strategic campaign. But I do think something "analogous" to that has to be instituted, with details depending on the campaign economics.

Then there's the power requirement. A late-period defense, with things like PFs (two PFs in a"standard" flotilla can have web generators, and that's not including "casual" flotillas, which can't have a PFS but can have more PFWs) and PCXs instead of standard PCs, can afford the power. But I'm not convinced it's worth it. I can come up with specific scenarios in which a 4-tier wedding cake is superior to a 3-tier one, even considering the power requirement. But I'm not convinced those scenarios are actually likely to occur against an exerienced opponent. And a late period 3-tier with adequate ship support (a must for using a 4-tier defense at all) is already tremendously strong. So I'm not sold on length-42 webs for wedding cake defense, at least not yet.

But for Tholians who like the buzzsaw, maybe you're on to something... A 2-strand buzzsaw with length-42 strands is, I believe, a much bigger improvement over a buzzsaw with length-30 strands, than is the case with 4-tier versus 3 tier wedding cakes. And while the power requirements are very heavy, a late-period defense could afford even that, especially if the Tholian BATS is an X-BATS.

The issue is warning time. You may recall that one of the advantages I see for wedding cakes is that, given an attack with little warning time, the Tholians could choose to only power up the inner two tiers, which still leaves a viable defense. In an extreme emergency they might only power the innermost tier, which is clearly much weaker but still has some advantages. A buzzsaw does not have a comparably viable "short warning" defense. You and I disgreed on how important the factor was. Length-42 strands would aggravate that issue, due to the even greater time (given same available power) required for the Tholians to bring them up to strength. So for buzzsaw defenses, with long warning time length-42 strands are clearly superior to length-30. With short warning time, they might actually be worse, depending on just how short the warning time is. The usefulness of the improvement overall would depend on your assessment of the relative likelyhoods of those scenarios. But in general, I do think that length-42 web represents (potentially) a much greater improvement for buzzsaw defenses than for wedding cake defenses.


Hmm... "short answer" turned out to be a little longer than I had intended...

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, June 27, 2023 - 09:50 pm: Edit

I have tried building a Buzzsaw Web. As I am guessing and do not know were in example of one is. I place the base. Put an anchor and web 1 hex from the base in Dir B,D,and F. Next place a Anchor and web next to each. Dir B goes to C, D to E and F to A. Then Turn each strand to the right again. These will need to be 1 hex longer. Ending at a Anchor to turn around the other web. There must be an anchor at each Corner.

It seems there are places You only need to cross one web hex/line. Then stick into the next to fire on the base.

A two strand Buzz saw as I see it puts 2 3 hex webs beside the base. Then start to circle the base.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, June 27, 2023 - 11:44 pm: Edit

Alan, another thing to consider is that the power requirements comparison of the buzzsaw and wedding cake switch in favor of the buzzsaw. A 4-tier wedding cake has 96 web hexes, 90 of which must be powered without the base. The buzzsaw has 84 hexes and the base's power.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 - 07:43 am: Edit

I'd like the base to have some "heavy duty webcasters" WCXX.

Then, you could cast web to create much of that buzzsaw.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, June 29, 2023 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) check the email address you provided in your description.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, June 29, 2023 - 06:20 pm: Edit

That was very very helpful Now how to attack such and defend such...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, June 30, 2023 - 01:21 pm: Edit

Alan, I've been playing with web configurations going back to the no-limit days. There is such a thing as too much web, not from a BPV standpoint but from a fleet support standpoint.

As I mentioned earlier a 4-tier wedding cake, 90 of the 96 web hexes require the fleet to power them during combat. In a theoretical 5-tier wedding cake the outer web has 54 hexes alone, and the total number of web hexes requiring fleet support is 144.

A buzzsaw can handle this better as each strand only adds the extra hexes of web per strand, and of course the base gets to help.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Friday, June 30, 2023 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Reading up on web rules. Degradation of web 1 per hex of web. (Regardless of Year)

In year Y175 later .50 adds 1 point.

Wedding cake would then need 3 points of power to maintain inner web. The base easily does this.
The second web 18 hexes would need 9 points of power to maintain. Must be from ships. The outer ring 30 hexes would need 15 points of power to maintain. From ships only.

The Buzz Saw, has 2 or 3 30 hex webs. Each needing 15 points of power per turn to maintain. This power can come from the base.

Am I correct in my math in this?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, July 01, 2023 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Gregory, yes.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, July 02, 2023 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Then That is a good thing. That gives me to important thoughts on the Wedding cake vs the Buzz saw.

1. The wedding cake needs more ships to defend it then the Buzz saw. To power the outer webs.
The buzz saw can be powered from the center of the webs. However, it does take more power to maintain the web. The 2 Strand buzz saw is about the same cost as the wedding cake.

2. Cost the Buzz saw will cost more than the Wedding cake. Just the anchor points alone. 9 per strand for the Buzz Saw. 0 for the wedding cake. (note I would buy 6 for the middle ring of the wedding cake to put ground bases on.) At 25 a pop. 225 per strand. Or 500 for a two strand Buzz saw. At 150 for the center ring of the wedding cake. That still leaves 350 points.

By Michael F Guntly (Ares) on Sunday, July 02, 2023 - 05:00 pm: Edit

Gregory,
Per previous messages, if you put anchor points in the globular web (wedding cake), it is no longer a globular web. 6 anchor points would make it 6 strands of anchored linear web, which would have different corollaries from a globular web. Among those would be 1) each strand would need to be powered/reinforced individually, and 2) destroying an anchor point would cause two strands to completely collapse immediately.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation