Archive through July 24, 2023
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: General Tactics Discussion:
Tholian Tactics:
Archive through July 24, 2023
Well, once again I kind of dropped the ball on getting back to this topic. But there are still a few things I wanted to mention.
In the scenario above, the Tholians fired their phasers preemptively while the Seltorians were still one hex away from the web, to "pull as many teeth" as possible before the Seltorians get a chance to fire at all. But the Tholian disruptors must wait until the surviving Seltorians are in the web itself, and fire simultaneously with those surviving Seltorians.
There is another tactic the Tholians could try, if they can pull off the timing. That is to move the Tholian ships onto the web ring as the attackers approach the web, so as to get there overloaded disruptors into play before the Selts get a shot at the base. The problem is that the Selts could also fire at the Tholian ships prior to having any teeth pulled. So you would be sacrificing the ships to save the base. A better option may be to fire all phaser-IVs and phaser-1s when the Selts are two hexes from the web (three hexes from the base + ships). The phaser-IVs are still at full strength and while the phaser-1s lose a little bit of damage (range-2 vs. range-3), this still pulls a substantial number of teeth, before the Tholian ships (and maybe shuttlecraft) move onto the web and expose them selves to fire. They then fire their overloaded disruptors and phaser-3s, while taking return fire from the surviving Seltorians. This tactic would expose the Tholian ships to more damage but would involve even less damage to the base station.
I would not use this tactic against the Seltorians in the defined scenario becasue I believe I can pull enough teeth to save the base without the ships leaving the base hex. But in a similar situation with the Hydrans (say, a Ranger + a Horseman + 15 fighters (12 Stinger-2, 2 Stinger-H, one Stinger-E (which still has a gatling-phaser)), I might. That Hydran force, approximately comparable in BPV, has so much short ranged firepower that I don't think I could save the base solely with preemptive phaser fire. But add in the overloaded disruptors (and some luck), and... maybe.
More later (but I hope not a month later (or nearly so) this time...)
Okay, getting back to this. I wanted to discuss Vandar's scenario, even though it differs a lot from a full wedding cake, because it does show the value of even that 6-hex globular web around the base, in enabling "preemptive fire". A Tholian base station or BATS with a single 6-hex globular web and no ships at all will inflict significantly more damage on the attackers than anyone else's unsupported base, because it forces the attacker (except Selts with enough web breakers to take the web down) to close point blank range to the phaser-IVs.
Against anyone else's base, the attacker would have that option if he decided it was the best tactic. But then a game of chicken occurs, with the base having to decide when to fire. For example, if the attcker has enough ships to do significant damage to the base once it reaches overload range, the base may fire at range-9. But then the surviving attackers (a range-9 shot isn't likely to do enough damage to stop the assault) can move into to point blank range and unload their remaining weapons on the base. So if the base forgoes the range-9 shot, what about range-8? Do the attackers intend to fire at range-8 and then turn away? The base doesn't know. It has to guess. If the base fires at range-8 but the attackers hold their fire, once again the surviving attackers close to point blank range. But if the base holds fire and the attackers do fire at range-8, they inflict damage and only the base's surviving weapons can shoot back next impulse. And if the attacker made an oblique attack and moves the next impulse, it may turn away so even the base's surviving weapons are shooting at range-9. None of this applies to the unsupported Tholian base with a 6-hex globular web. It knows the attacker has to close to point blank range and holds its phaser fire to inflict maximum damage.*
Still, while even the 6-hex web is useful, it still pales in comparison to a full wedding cake, supported by ships and/or PFs. My next post will get back to a wedding cake assault.
*This discussion does assume either the attacker has no significant seeking weapon capability or the Tholian can reinforce the globular web enough to stop the seeking weapons, before they reach the base. This will vary depending on things like initial strength of web and how far away the enemy are detected... and what kind of seeking weapons they have.
One other little item, Tholian BSs have a seventh PH-4 (their BTS have 8) ...
Stewart,
Yeah, I mentioned that a Tholian Base Station has 7 phaser-IVs in my 12:43 pm post on 9 March. I didn't mention the BATS having 8 of them because Vandar's scenario specified a BS.
For what it's worth, I prefer a BATS for wedding cake defense (unless the BPV level is very low) not so much for the extra phaser-IV (though it is useful) but because the BATS has four scout channels rather than two, and a lot more power to make use of them.
I kind of got distracted from this discussion, but there are still a couple of things I wanted to add.
Seltorians "crashing" the web: I wanted to add that there are also circumstances under which the Seltorians might try to crash the outer ring of a wedding cake. Given the improved web reinforcement capability of late-era Tholians (X-ships, PFs), it may be difficult for the Seltorians to take the outermost ring down with web breakers. One possible solution is to have some Selt units dive into the web to attack the Tholian units reinforcing the web, while other units tear it down with their web breakers. PFs and fighters are ideal for the former role as they do not carry web breakers themselves and thus their loss will not reduce the web breaking capability of the Seltorian force. The PFs and fighters are also economically cheaper than ships to replace (since they will almost certainly die in the process). The timing might go somewhat as follows: Attrition units charge into web early in the turn to attack Tholian reinforcing units. After the defending Tholians have shot up the attacking Selt attrition units, the Selt web breaker-equipped ships, which had been hanging back at range, move in close to the web so as to inflict maximum damage on it, then move back to longer range before the Tholian weapons have recycled. The viability of the tactic depends heavily on whether the Tholian ships/PFs possess enough power, in aggregate, to put a lot of reinforcing energy into the web while still moving at high speeds. If the web is lightly defended, the Tholians may not have enough aggregate power to do this and the ships maintaining the outer ring will be stationary or moving slowly. High-speed Tholians, darting out from behind the middle ring, reinforcing the outer ring, then diving back behind the middle ring are much more difficult to deal with. Only the Andros really have a viable answer in that case. Note also that even if the Tholians have only a few ships/PFs, minefields will make this tactic tougher to execute.
Speaking of minefields...: I have already expressed my opinion that the Hydrans are actually the toughest Tholian opponent except for the Andros, due to their ability to field enormous numbers of fighters that have extremely good firepower at the short ranges characteristic of a wedding cake assault. This also means that, although minefields are useful against other attackers, they are vastly more important against the Hydrans. If the Tholian base is very heavily defended, the Tholians may be able to kill enough fighters purely through phaser fire, before the outer ring goes down (see previous comment about "only the Andros..."). But in more typical defenses, the defenders may not be able to kill enough Hydrans quickly enough. Huge numbers of fragile attrition units are not optimal for breaching minefields, however. Lesser bases may live or die depending on the Tholian's skill at setting up minefields and the Hydran's skill at breaching them.
One final thought... If the Andros are the Tholian nightmare, might a Seltorian/Hydran alliance be in second place?
I think it's tough to beat photons as Tholian heavy weapons. Getting a range 2 shot with photons before the enemy gets to shoot back is massive.
In the CP55 discussion Things came up about The PC vs Disrupters and Photons. Also how do PCs work with the Web Caster.
Since it was said that such a discussion should be in the proper topic.
The PC has a different dynamic then the Disrupters. I played the Seltorians in a campaign this past year. I found PCs great when I could get of two shots in a turn. Chasing after a convoy (Convoy raid battle) the PC was fantastic. Fire once then latter once more on weak shields the freighters. Since they are moving away was easy to keep the range. This made the less accuracy of the PC over the Disrupter equal for damage output.
The other was the fact that The PC can fire an Overload shot any time. You are not caught holding overloads. With Disrupters and photons Overload is well overloads.
I would think that the PC would work well in a retrograde or vs the retrograde. That makes it easy to get two shots a turn.
Then there is the Webcaster. Fire the PC on approach. Throw out a web wall. When the PC cycles pass thru the web and fire again.
On web defense. The PC does not need to be overloaded it has the capacitor. If the attacker does not charge the web and stays outside of overload range. You can step out and fire the PCs. Slip back in and can still fire overloads if they crash the web.
Just some thoughts on this.
Vandar;
I agree with some of what you've said but I've also got to disagree with you on a couple of points.
Quote:I would think that the PC would work well in a retrograde or vs the retrograde. That makes it easy to get two shots a turn.
The problem is control of the range. At range 23-30, a PC only averages 1/3 points of damage per shot, or 2/3 points of damage per turn. A DERFACS-assisted disruptor (which generally means cruisers-or-larger) averages 1 point per turn, while a proximity fuzed photon torpedo averages 2 points every 2 turns (even for small ships). So PCs can work in a retrograde, if you control the range better than your opponent or if the opponent is disruptor armed, with mostly "small" ships. But if you don't control the range and are facing a photon-armed opponent, or a disruptor-armed opponent with mostly "big" ships, you will lose over time, even with two shots per turn.
Quote:On web defense. The PC does not need to be overloaded it has the capacitor. If the attacker does not charge the web and stays outside of overload range. You can step out and fire the PCs. Slip back in and can still fire overloads if they crash the web.
This is true but I don't think it is as tactically significant as you think it is. At the close ranges characterizing a wedding cake assault, the battle may (depending on specific forces and tactics involved) be largely decided by a single exchange, once the two sides have line-of-fire against each other. Note here that I don't mean the fight will be completely over based on that exchange. Rather, after that exchange, the eventual winner will be clear and the subsequent turns are basically "clean up". This puts a premium on one-shot "crunch power". High rate of fire only matters if the fight lasts long enough for it to matter.
Now, at very close ranges the difference in expected damage between an overloaded disruptor and one shot from an overloaded PC isn't all that much. So the possibility of a second shot for the PC may make it a slightly better choice for web defense. But neither can natch the photon torpedo in that role. I continue to assert that photon torpedoes are the best heavy weapons for wedding cake defense. (Phasers, of course, are the best weapons of all.)
One final point about PCs in wedding cake defense: Recall that a ship trapped in a web can change its facing, even if it can't leave the web hex. So there is still the issue of a PC hitting different shields with its diffreent shots, resulting in less internal damage to the target even if the PC inflicts more total points of damage.
One final comment on photons versus disruptors versus particle cannons: While I stand by my earleir comment that photons are best for wedding cake defense, I believe the real strategic-level issue for the Tholians is how these weapons perform in open space combat. The Tholians are already inherently very strong defending a webbed position, and the key weapon for that defense is the phaser.
In the CL55 thread, Alan Trevor wrote:
"Disruptors - See above. The fact that the Tholians launched a complex "special ops" mission to steal disruptor technology from the Klingons, despite the clear superiority of PCs, provides pretty strong evidence that for whatever reason, Tholians just couldn't build PCs in this galaxy."
I'd like to point out, that the raids were NOT to get a tech to supplant PCs. They were a necessity, as the Tholians had *lost access* to the data files allowing the creation of new PCs and neo-hulls because of a computer lockout / failsafe. If they hadn't launched the intelligence / SpecFor raids, they would have eventually lost all of the heavy weapons in their fleet without the ability to manufacture more.
Allan: All very good points. There is of course your 1/3 or 2/3 damage points a turn. I know you come up with that with wonderful math. I do know that 16-22 or 23-30 is a 1-2 for a PC to hit. And a DERFAC disrupter is 1-3 at those ranges. The PC doing 2 and 1 damage. The Disrupter doing 2 damage.
In practice or as it happens. 2 out of 4 disrupters should hit a turn. (my logic and it does bare out over time and rolls) This average to 4 damage. The PC 1 out of 4 hits. Twice a turn is 2 or 4 depending on range. This being over 2 shields. The fractional damage thing well never happens. In this the Disrupter is a better weapon.
Worse it is very hard to get that second shot with the 12 impulse delay.
The Capacitor for the PC. Holds 5 power for 2.5 cost. Holds 3 for 1.5 cost. Disrupter 2 or 4 for overloads. At 1.5 I am holding a Single shot twice or 1 overload. With an empty capacitor 3 points is still better power wise then a Disrupter. When in knife fighting range. (3 power vs 4 for overloads)
Now in web defense. This power efficiency is important. holding 3 for an overload 1.5
overloaded Disrupters 4. A cruiser has 4 each. 6 points of power for the 4 PCs. 16 for the 4 Disrupters. 10 total points of power for reinforcing the web with a PC armed cruiser.
The Photon of course is only 2 to hold full overloads. There is no way the PC is better than that.
The PC does less damage and accuracy sucks. Even two shots a turn does not bring it even. The capacitor does give the PC more flexibility over the Disrupter and photon. Overloaded is not restricted.
All the thoughts of such things of course go out the window when cardboard hits the table.
Vandar, as someone who occasionally does dumb exercises, I've done an "Infantry Line Exercise" for PC vs. Disruptor.
(Basically, the "Infantry Line Exercise" is lining up the Infantry like some Napoleonic era fop without regard for the lives of the infantry, and just have them blast at each other. It ain't realistic for SFB, but it does serve a semi-useful role for weapon analysis.)
Six turns worth at 23 to 30 hex range, a Disruptor can be expected to do four points of damage, or six with DERFACS, assuming no ECM. A PC can also be expected to do four points of damage.
Six turns worth at 16 to 22 hexes, Disruptors can be expected to do six points of damage while PCs can be expected to do eight.
Nine to fifteen hexes pushes Disruptors up to twelve points of damage while PCs can be expected to do eightteen.
At five to eight hexes, overloads become an issue, so Disruptors can be expected to do twenty four points of damage normally and thirty with UIM while PCs can be expected to do twenty seven.
Three to four hexes push disruptors (with overloads) to thirty two normally and forty with UIM while PCs again split the difference with thirty six.
Of course, who's going to just sit there and duke it out that way. 
What this exercise showed me is that, at certain ranges, the PC can, if the ship using it is flown well, be more damaging than the classic Disruptor. Given the shields and maneuverability of the Tholian Destroyer, I'm inclined to think it may be an excellent ship to showcase this capability.
My (pretty idiotic) 0.02 Quatloos worth...
Jeff,
You need to compare "like vesus like". Tholians only get UIM with X-tech. So, using your own system, at eight hexes a disruptor would do 24 points over six turns, or 30 if it were X-tech.* But an X-tech PC can overload both shots in a turn, not just one. So at the same range a PC would 27 points over six turns, or 36 if it were X-tech.
*Assuming the UIM hasn't burned out by then.
(eep...)
(umm...)
(...)
(Well, I guess that's what I get for just using charts... )
Umm, at any rate, I think that shows that, for some ships, the Particle Cannon can be an even better system, compared with the iconic Disruptor.
(Yeah, yeah! That's it! That's the ticket!!)
HOWEVER, I also feel oblidged to say that, were a D hull to try using Particle Cannons, the results would be less beneficial. THIS time, I did check the SSD to confirm (); its Disruptors are on LF+L and RF+R arcs. Were it to have them repaced by PCs, they'd have to either split their fire on multiple targets, somehow get forward centerline on a single target multiple times per turn, or try to swing back and forth across those arcs multiple times per turn. While a turn mode of "C" isn't bad, it isn't good either.
Contrasted with the DD. Overlapping firing arcs (FA+L/R) and a turn mode "A" (AND they're Nimble) means that ship should have a MUCH easier time getting the multiple firing opportunities each turn that Particle Cannon need for maximum effectiveness.
There are two things that I have realized while reading all of this. As well as my own posts.
The PC and WEB.
In web defense PC vs DISR Power cost is key. 1.5 to hold a PC with 3 points of power in the capacitor. WS-2 gives that in the capacitor. Those 3 points gives the PC one overload or 2 standard shots. A DISR takes 2 or 4 points of power and no way to hold it. A CA with 4 PC uses 6 points of power. The DISR CA would use 8 or 16 points of power. That leaves more power for web reinforcement or other things. In latter turns after the ships are in the web. The two shots will add up. As well as the power curve.
Reserve power to fire.
With the DISR it costs 2 to fire a standard DISR. Or 2 to overload a standard DISR. You could save power by loading standard DISR. Then overloading with BTTY if the charge the web. However, the 4 are 2 BTTY that ships have will only arm 1 or 2 DISR. While the 4 BTTY could fire a second PC shot if there are enough impulses left in the turn. Granted a good player would not allow that.
In open space with Webcasters.
firing a long-range PC shot or an early shot. (As in early in the turn) Throwing up a Web break to stop the opponent from hitting with weapons. Then passing thru the web once the PCs have cycled. Attacking fixed positions with the PC and web could work the same way.
Anyone else about that?
The DD has the agility to make good use of the PC. But until you get to the DDL (which doesn't appear until Y179), I'm not sure it has the power.* Prior to the DDL, a Tholian DD only generates 19 power. Note that to use disruptors to full effectiveness outside overload range, the DD would spend 2 points per disruptor per turn on them. But it would have to spend 3 points per PC per turn to use particle cannons to full effect. With overloads it's a little more complicated; not for the disruptors (a straight 4 points per disruptor per turn), but for the PCs (5 points if it takes the non-overloaded shot first, but only 4 shots if it takes the overloaded shot first). The matter is further complicated by the PC capacitor holding energy. But all in all, the PCs would draw a little more power per turn than the disruptors, if used to maximum effect. And with only 19 points to play with, I'm not (at least, not yet) sold on the idea.
I must confess, though, that part of the reason I'm not sold is that the ships would either be purely "conjectural" or they would require rewriting some SFU history.
*If ADB ever were to publish an alternate-armament version of the DDL, I would much rather see one with photon torpedoes. At least that option would give the ship better "crunch power".
Vandar;
Here's another point I should have mentioned earlier, re wedding cake defense.
Suppose the Tholians are hiding behind the middle ring and using phasers-only to attrit attackers trapped on the outer ring. If at some point they decide to move on to the middle ring so they can use their heavy weapons against the attackers on the outer ring, they will ususally want to get back behind the midddle ring as soon as possible to minimize the fire they receive from the attackers. (Admittedly, this will depend on the overall situation, including factors like how many turns before the outer ring decays enough for attackers to advance over it, and how many "uncommitted" attackers (not yet trapped on the outer ring) are still active.) But if the Tholians do want to pull back behind the middle ring immediately, they can easily do this after firing disruptors or photons. But in order to get in both PC shots, they must be exposed for a longer period of time, increasing the chances that the enemy can get an effective shot against them.
Allen the PC armed Tholians would be conjectural. The Tholians decided to replace all of the 312 PCs with Disrupters.
Now was this because they could not repair them? Or did they feel they were the better weapon?
In the home galaxy. The PC is the weapon of choice. In the CL55 thread it was asked about PC and web tech. How would the work together.
I am of your same mind that the Disrupter is the better weapon between it and the PC. There are some ways that the PC is better. Overall, the Disrupter edges out the PC.
I would as a Tholian prefer in the Milky Way to have photons.
I did find playing the Seltorians in a campaign using Matts engine challenging. Getting in two shots happened rarely and only in certain instances and scenarios. Such as chasing down a convoy or attacking a fixed point. I found that Loading 3 points per PC. Was more power efficient then trying to keep a full capacitor. 5 in the capacitor means 2.5 holding. Firing a single shot takes 2 leaving 3 in the capacitor. To bring it back to 5 costs 1.5 to hold +2 = 3.5 cost. So, at a high weapon status I might start with 5. In latter turns I would simply load 3. Fire 1 standard for 2 and a second shot for 1 if I can. If not .5 to hold add 2 =2.5 power. For 3 in the capacitor. In less of course I fired a overload. Then if latter in the turn I can burn BTTY to fire a second shot.
I also noticed something else about the PC and Seltorians. The PC aided by the Sheild cracker produces about the same damage as a ship with Disrupters and no shield crackers.
I also ran into the fact that if I fired a long-range shot. The opponent would be in overload range before I could cycle. Unless I turned away. Then of course with the bad turn mode and Het ability put them at a disadvantage. Making it real hard to get turned back in for a second shot.
Now with some webcasters. Toss out a web to force their movement. Fire that long range shot and then be in position for a second. Even a possible overloaded one.
Respectfully, Vandar, when ships are at longer ranges, from my experience, they're either trying to get away from a fight (in which case, they're concerned with things other than overloading weapons) or the fight is in an early enough stage that there's as close to "Plenty of Power" as anything in SFB ever has.
That being the case, it seems reasonable that a PC armed ship should have the power to charge the PC capacitors with five points of energy each. IMO, they should do so. IF an opponent closes to within overload range, they're ready for that exchange. If an opponent doesn't, the nature of PC arming means the PC armed ship can still take a second standard arming level shot.
In the latter case, yes, it's one point of energy next turn to "Hold the Capacitor," but then, because there's already two points of energy in that capacitor, it's just another three points of energy to get energy levels in that capacitor up to the full five points...
... And that's assuming the enemy still is playing the long range game.
IF the opponent is close enough that, in the new turn, things are going to overload ranges right away, the PC armed ships can allocate just two energy points into charging their PC capacitors for that turn.
Three points of energy total, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do more damage than should be expected from Disruptors with four points of energy allocated to them.
PLUS flexibility if the opponent doesn't do what the PC armed ships expect.
(And how often do opponents do something other than what we expect... )
For the Tholian experts in the audience:
Elsewhere on the BBS, I've been speculating on a "what-if" set of contingencies, in which the Holdfast Sphere showed up in Omega rather than in Alpha.
As part of this, I've been thinking of what - if any - direct-fire heavy weapons the "Omega-Holdfast" might use in place of the historical Holdfast's use of disruptors and of photon torpedoes. (To include whether or not there was a means for those Tholians to recover particle cannon technology.)
-----
Now, I don't want to sidetrack this thread with talk that ought to go in the thread linked to above.
However, what I did want to ask over here was about the "baseline": as in, how the Tholians make use of the particle cannon, the disruptor, and/or the photon torpedo in historical scenarios - be they in the M81 Galaxy or in the Alpha Octant; and be it for battles in open space, or on either side of a battle at a fixed installation.
Of course, this is by no means a new topic; some of the most recent posts in his thread cover it. Even so, I hoped to gleam some fresh insights from the experts, if such insights remain to be found...
I am going to post this in the Tholian tactics because I really think it belongs here.
Global web vs. Buzz-saw.
First no matter how You look at it. The Buzz-Saw cost more than the Globular Web. If a Three strand buzz-saw it is a very significant amount.
Asteroids for anchors at 25 BPV each (economy wise what is the cost of finding the large rocks and bringing them to the base.) Each strand needs 9 asteroids for anchors. (9*25=225 BPV per strand.) The wedding cake needs no anchors. A few for ground bases can be nice, however.
At start web strength. For a 2 strand Buzz-saw and a standard wedding cake. The cost is about even. Wedding cake has 6+18+30=45 web hexes. While the 2 strand has 2 30 hex webs for 60. The 3 strand has 90 web hexes. The wedding cake reduce costs further by reducing the strength of the inner webs to save points. The Buzz-Saw could reduce the strength of the strands to save points. Not sure how this would affect costs.
Last minefields, When I played Tholians back in the day. We seldomly used minefields. The wedding cake can be defended without the minefield. As I see it the Buzz-Saw needs the minefield. They are cheap for a base at 50 per package. Yet You are going to want to add a few more command mines. (This also adds to the economic cost of the base. For emplacing and maintaining the mine field.)
This means that a wedding cake is cheaper than the Buzz-Saw. Both in BPV and economically.
This then adds more BPV for defending ships for the wedding cake. The anchors alone give 450 BPV for a 2 strand and 675 BPV for a 3 strand. (Economically that adds more mobile units for patrol and to move were needed.)
Minefields.
As above the Buzz-Saw needs the minefields to work. The wedding cake does not need a minefield but can benefit by having a few packages.
Dense mine groupings in the channels of the Buzz-Saw. Paths that lead across the strands for Tholian Ships to reach the base. Putting the Mine field closer to the base and its phaser-IVs. Making it harder to sweep the mines. However, the attacker can concentrate on one side of the Buzz-Saws 2 or 3 strand. Leaving a whole side untouched. Two breach the wedding cake. You have to stick ships in all sides of the web to stop reinforcement. That means You have to sweep all sides of the Mine field.
In a two strand Buzz-Saw. All you need to do is first map that section of the Mine field. Take out any mines outside the channel. Stick your ship in the web and sweep the mines. Pull out the ship and repeat. You only need to clean out 14 hexes like that. Then bring the ships down the channel. Enter the web 2 hex range from the base and blow it up. It is a little harder to do vs the 3 strand Buzz-Saw. As you do need to get deeper into the web. However, You can still ignore the mines in the other channels. Ships will be damaged/crippled. With the cost of the base and all. I believe a savvy attacker can take out a Buzz-Saw. With even BPV. For the wedding cake the Minefield is just something to slow down the attacker. It is the ships that defend the wedding cake not the Mines.
Seltorian Web breaker.
A large fleet attacking abase could have over 10 Web breakers. They can over time take down a 30 hex web. All you need is to take down one strand of a two strand Buzz-Saw. You can stick your ships in the remaining strand and plaster the base. You can take the same amount of time and take down the 30-hex outer web of the wedding cake. There is still another web to take down before You can get to the base.
My conclusion is that a Wedding cake is the better choice both economically and defensibly. The extra cost for a static defense is not better than spending it on mobile units.
Gary Carney;
I'm not exactly a "Tholain expert" but I do play them more than I play any other empire. I meant to respond to your 18 July, 1:37 PM post much earlier but got sidetracked. And unfortunately, I don't have time to respond right now. I'll try to post something of an answer tomorrow. But your question is pretty vague and open-ended. It would help if you could give a better idea what information you are looking for.
Gary Carney;
I'm still not sure what information you're looking for. But for what it's worth, I hope the following helps.
During the EY period, the Tholians don't have access to photon torpedo technology. Their available heavy weapons (not countng an EXTREMELY limited number of web casters) are the particle cannon (on the Neo-Tholian NFF and NDD) and the disruptor (on the Archeo-Tholian DD). Between the two, the PC is the better weapon. This is because, while the Tholians are not under EY restrictions in some respects, they are in others. In particular, during EY the DD cannot overload its disruptors. But the Neo-Tholian ships can overload their PCs. So in EY a PC actually has better crunch power than a disruptor at 8 hexes or less. Even if it does not get its second shot, on overloaded PC at 8 hexes has a 50% chance of hitting for 6 points of damage while a disruptor has a 67% chance of hitting, but for only 3 points of damage.
In the "standard tech" era the disruptor becomes the better weapon, in my opinion. An overloaded disruptor at range 8 has a 67& chance to hit for 6 points of damage. So now you're looking at an expectation of 4 points of damage per disruptor per turn, versus 41/2 for the PC if it manages to get off both shots (one overloaded, one standard). But even then, there is an excellect chance the two shots will fall on different shields. So a Tholian fleet armed with disruptors may do more internal damage than a comparable fleet armed with PCs, even if the PC fleet scores slightly more total damage.
The PC is superior to the disruptor within the 9-15 range bracket, since you're less concerned about crunch power and more concerned about damage over time. The PC has the edge there, 3 points per PC per turn (assuming they get off both shots, which is more likely at the longer ranges) versus 2 points per turn for disruptors. But the situation becomes more complicated as the range increases, particularly in the 23-30 range bracket. At that range, a DERFACS-aimed disruptor averages 1 point of damage per turn while a PC averages 1/3 per shot, or 2/3 per PC per turn. But PCs range to 30 hexes, even on small ships. For the disruptors, only those disruptors on cruisers and larger will range that far. Disruptors on small ships have shorter ranges. So a disruptor-armed sqaudron will outgun a comparable PC-armed squadron at long range if we are talking about a squadron of primarily "big" ships. But with a lot of small ships, the PC-armed squadron has the dge at long range.
A final point in favor of the disruptor is that it is less affected by heavy ECM. As already mentioned, overloaded disruptors average 4 points of damage per turn per disruptor at 8 hexes, while PCs average 41/2 (one overloaded shot ans one standard). The disruptor has the edge in crunch power but the PC has the edge in overall damage points. But against a +1 DRM, the average damage for both weapons is reduced to 3 points per turn per weapon. the disruptor still holds the crunch power advantage but the PC no longe inflicts more total damage per turn. And against a +2 DRM, the overloaded disruptors average 2 points per turn per disruptor while the PCs average only 11/2, even with two shots. The superior resistance of disruptors to ECM effects is another reason why I consider disruptors (even without UIM, which the Tholians don't get until X-tech) to be superior to PCs in the "standard tech" era.
I had hoped to post more tonight but this is taking longer than planned and I have something I need to do. Tomorrow I will try to post something about photon torpedoes, and also X-tech. The photon torpedo section should be much more "Tholian-specific" since it will discuss tactical ramifications of web, related to the various heavy weapons
Thank you kindly for the thoughts you have posted thus far.
From a Tholian (and Seltorian) perspective, it makes sense that the particle cannon would not necessarily be designed* with a heavy electronic warfare environment in mind. In open space, no-one in the M81 Galaxy had scout ships (or rather, scout variants of "line" warships). While in a nebula (in those instances where the Tholians and/or their enforcers were trying to clear out a Nebuline colony), the range of tactical options available were going to be severely limited in any event.
Although, even in the Milky Way, from what you are saying the particle cannon holds up (or perhaps would have held up) better against the disruptor during the Middle Years. With no DERFACS on Tholian ships until Y168; special sensors remaining under Early Years restrictions until Y134; and a relatively few varieties of scout ship in Tholian or Klingon service for most of this time period; this would appear to make the comparison more favourable than it would have been during the General War.
*In-universe, I mean. From a "game design" perspective, the rules for the particle cannon were only finalized during the development of the Seltorians, and (from what I gather) was only then reverse-engineered back onto the Neo-Tholian ships which served in the home galaxy. I might wonder how differently the Tholians might have developed as a playable faction had the particle cannon been invented earlier in the course of SFB's development...
A player could I am thinking. Replace the Disrupters on the Tholian ships with PCs. Just to see how they would affect the game play. I do not think there would be much of a change in BPV of the ships. I am not an expert on that, but I think they are comparable in price.