A while ago, in the new rules section, I suggested that during the early years that the Tholians may have been technologically able to spin webs longer than 18 hexes. I suggested this based on the energy requirements. It takes 96 points of energy just to maintain the outer 2 layers of a wedding cake. Reinforcing those layers requires energy above those 96 energy points. This is impractical to put it mildly, so it wasn't a stretch for me to suggest that the Tholians be forbidden to do something they couldn't afford to do anyway.

On the very real chance that this idea is rejected, I came up with the following idea.

Ground Based Web Generator.

First used by the Tholians shortly after their arrival in this galaxy, this base made 30 hex length webs more practical. Positioned out of the line of fire from an enemy outside the web, six of these bases on web anchor asteroids could provide more than half of the maintenance energy to the power hungry outer layer web, or could power the middle layer of a Tholian wedding cake without assistance .

Although vulnerable to destruction by the enemy's destroying the asteroid upon which it sits, this sacrifice would give local units added time to reinforce the web, and allowed extra ships time to arrive and assist with the defense. It also allowed local units more opportunities to fire at the enemy from behind a web doing damage without taking any.

It was rare for a space bound base to have more than 6 of these ground bases due to the cost of replacement of the bases and the asteroids on which they sat. Often, there would be fewer than six for the same reason. The Klingons developed the tactic of destroying one asteroid after another to destroy their web based web generators. If reinforcements arrived quickly and in sufficient force, the Klingons would disengage being content with the damage they had done. If they destroyed enough asteroids that they saw an increase in Tholian ships reinforcing the web, or better a weakening of the web, they would stick around to cause more havoc.

This continued until shortly after Y121 when the Tholians made an improvement to their webs. A Klingon squadron destroyed all six asteroids in the outer layer of the web. Although the Tholian ship activity behind that web increased, the Klingons sensors detected no diminution in web strength. The Klingons ended this tactic of destroying asteroids when they encountered a base surrounded by globular webs and no asteroids at all.

At this time, GBWGs were phased out of use due to the expense of replacing both the pulverized asteroids and the destroyed bases. The Tholian fleet had grown enough that the available ships could maintain the webs cheaper in unit costs than the GBWGs could.

GBWGs became a distant memory until the Seltorians arrived. Plans were made to bring back GBWGs, but the ISC Echelon of Judgment destroyed the Seltorian Hive ship before the first ground base could be brought into service. The plans were scrapped soon afterward.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 19, 2023 - 10:21 pm: Edit

It is not clear to me how you are positioning the bases so they aren't just targeted by weapons fire. By the asteroid rules, any base on an asteroid has a 360 degree field of fire and thus a 360 degree field of attack.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, May 20, 2023 - 07:56 am: Edit

As I see it any base in the outer web. Would be blown away. They cannot be fired on outside range 5 I believe. So, there is that saving grace. In the inner web they would be safe until the first web is breached. There they could power the second web and add a couple of phaser3 to the defense. Any in the inner ring would be unnecessary. The base powers that ring.

If the cost is the same as other small ground bases. Then most commanders would rather take a few Phser-4 bases.

It seems like the Tholians could build web generators. Un like web casters. I have not heard of them being restricted in the number they could build either. Such a ground base could be made I think. usefulness of it never knows.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, May 20, 2023 - 01:50 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

They cannot be fired on outside range 5 I believe.

---

---

Quote:

Large asteroids can be fragmented by 400 points of damage. This will destroy any base built on the asteroid or any ground troops deployed on the asteroid.

---

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, May 20, 2023 - 04:54 pm: Edit

A thought just hit me.

What if the Klingons dropped a ton of Marines on the asteroid with the mission of trying to capture the station?

Would the Tholians risk the possibility of a web generator being captured intact?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, May 20, 2023 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Hmmm, let's see

1 - Shuttle, has to survive weapons fire from Phaser-1 and -3s from ships in or behind the middle ring ...

2 - Transporters - range-9 from phaser-4s plus down shield to use ...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, May 20, 2023 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Steve, you caught a mistake of mine. IAW (R1.14A5) the field of fire is either 360 or 300 degrees. The 300 degree field of fire doesn't help much.

(R1.14C2) does help. "Small ground bases cannot be hit..., from beyond five hexes (true range)". Early years ships 10 hexes away from a base with P-4s and a squadron of PCs just inside the outer web layer would be cut apart trying to target a ground base. However, the large asteroid under the ground base can be targeted beyond 5 hexes. The attacking fleet can stand off beyond the effective range of P-4s under the (G10.62) web penalty and the Tholian ships P-1s and target the asteroid. Basically it's the same tactic for a different reason.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, May 21, 2023 - 07:16 am: Edit

Sorry for repeating what several others wrote. I began on my laptop, put the laptop to sleep so I could continue later, then posted without noticing others had posted.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, May 21, 2023 - 07:25 am: Edit

Alan, you are correct. As early years disruptors can shoot 15 hexes, the much larger Klingon fleet could still be out of P-4 effective range and effective P-1 range.

I figure a Tholian base surrounded by 3 web rings with GBWGs on the 6 outer asteroids would need 5 PCs minimum to power the outer and middle webs. That sounds like a good early years' scenario.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, May 21, 2023 - 04:05 pm: Edit

Stewart, you are right, of course, but there is one you left out; rule (P3.42) lets any unit land on a large asteroid.

I'd worry about the Klingons putting a D6G (or a D3G in the early years) down right next to this sort of base, if I were a Tholian.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, May 22, 2023 - 12:23 am: Edit

Jeff, didn't say it was impossible, with a large enough fleet (and sacrifices) it's probable, but with linmited resources, improbable at best ...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, May 22, 2023 - 01:09 am: Edit

Jeff, every time the Tholians go into combat there is the risk of an intact web generator being captured. I have no doubt it happened at some point. Whether or not it ever happened, (U7.22) makes it irrelevant.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, August 21, 2023 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Here's an updated history correcting the mistake found by SVC.

Ground Based Web Generator.

First used by the Tholians shortly after their arrival in this galaxy, this base made 30 hex length webs more practical. Six of these bases on web anchor asteroids could provide significant additional maintenance energy to the power hungry outer layer web, or could power the middle layer of a Tholian wedding cake without assistance .

Although vulnerable to destruction by the enemy's destroying the asteroid upon which it sits, this sacrifice would give local units added time to reinforce the web, and allowed extra ships time to arrive and assist with the defense. It also allowed local units more opportunities to fire at the enemy from behind a web doing damage without taking any.

It was rare for a space bound base to have more than 6 of these ground bases due to the cost of replacement of the bases and the asteroids on which they sat. Often, there would be fewer than six for the same reason. The Klingons developed the tactic of destroying one asteroid after another to destroy their web based web generators. If reinforcements arrived quickly and in sufficient force, the Klingons would disengage being content with the damage they had done. If they destroyed enough asteroids that they saw an increase in Tholian ships reinforcing the web, or better a weakening of the web, they would stick around to cause more havoc.

This continued until shortly after Y121 when the Tholians made an improvement to their webs. A Klingon squadron destroyed all six asteroids in the outer layer of the web. Although the Tholian ship activity behind that web increased, the Klingons sensors detected no diminution in web strength. The Klingons ended this tactic of destroying asteroids when they encountered a base surrounded by globular webs and no asteroids at all.

At this time, GBWGs were phased out of use due to the expense of replacing both the pulverized asteroids and the destroyed bases. The Tholian fleet had grown enough that the available ships could maintain the webs cheaper in unit costs than the GBWGs could.

GBWGs became a distant memory until the Seltorians arrived. Plans were made to bring back GBWGs, but the ISC Echelon of Judgment destroyed the Seltorian Hive ship before the first ground base could be brought into service. The plans were scrapped soon afterward.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, August 21, 2023 - 03:53 pm: Edit

If this idea were to be accepted, wouldn't an obvious add-on be an APR only power augmentation module? Basically, it would be something available before Y121 and less costly than the R1.17 PAM.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 21, 2023 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Let's consider a few things. First, a ground power station which this is supposedly based on is not available until Y120. It will take some time to build them. and once built, you are going to need at least a cargo patrol corvette to establish them, at the rate of two bases per cargo corvette. The Tholian Holdfast possessed three CPCs (a single 3CPC) at the start of the General War. I have, at this time, no way of knowing how many CPCs the Tholians would lose in trying to establish these bases which are obviously going to be targeted by the Klingons, since each one destroyed is 25% of PC and 50% of PC's crew. (Just running a few guesstimates through the computer). So when the CPC moves to place these bases, intercept them and wreck them to weaken the future Holdfast navy.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, August 21, 2023 - 04:41 pm: Edit

There is no real reason not to bring these forward, except that the Holdfast has very few resources.In theory, every four of these bases you are adding to the Tholians is subtracting one PC hull, and every two you Add is subtracting one PC hull. Or you could say they are adding these. But the question comes up, if we are adding these to the production schedule, what more can we add? And what do we give the Klingons and Romulans to make up for this? Bear in mind that his is not the first time this Tholian base idea has occurred (sorry John Christiansen). That being said, this is a game, so things can be added, but the Tholians are already difficult to attack (the former head of the Tholians for SFB commented that the only problem with being difficult to attack is that no-one will play you).

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, August 22, 2023 - 07:23 am: Edit

SPP. away from my books.

If a ship "docks" to an asteroid, is there a facing LOS issue?

So my PC docks to an asteroid. Can it then say, "I'm on facing A of the rock?"

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, August 22, 2023 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Mike, see (P3.43).

Steve, all good points, especially the "no-one will play you" one. I understood this a few hours after posting when I did the math and found that 6 of the proposed GBWGs with the suggested 6 APR only power packs would total 84 points of energy, or more than enough to maintain and reinforce a 30 hex pre-Y121 web with shields up.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, August 22, 2023 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Steve, I also admit to liking Elephant vs. Ants kinds of games. This is why I suggested the Planet Killer for FC which became named the Jupiter Killer, and am working on that mini-campaign Assault on a Defended Starbase, and a scenario for F&E The Seltorian Infestation.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, August 22, 2023 - 02:23 pm: Edit

John Christiansen has answered your query Mike Grafton. Note that the rule deals with ships docking to LARGE asteroids.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, August 23, 2023 - 07:25 am: Edit

Roscoehatfield. Thanks for the reference. But I am away from my books.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, August 24, 2023 - 09:36 am: Edit

Mike, hopefully this doesn't annoy anyone, but:

(P3.43) EFFECT: Units (e.g., ships) landed on large asteroids have
their normal facing, firing arcs, etc.
(P3.431) The asteroid will, however, block one shield arc (of the
owner’s choice, which is announced upon docking and which cannot
be changed without redocking) from receiving any damage. No
weapons can be fired or launched through that shield.
(P3.432) The unit cannot have a lock-on to any unit within the
blocked shield arc, cannot use transporters or tractors through that
arc (except to or from the asteroid itself), cannot be locked onto by
any unit in that arc, cannot conduct tactical intelligence observations
(or be observed) through that arc, and cannot move.
(P3.433) The unit can still be detected and located through the
blocked arc if its fire control is active.
(P3.434) Such asteroids cannot be towed within the context of a
scenario. (They have a movement cost of 1000+ and might be moved
over many turns. Impulse power cannot be used to tow something
this large.)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, August 25, 2023 - 09:51 am: Edit

Is there any reason this "GBWG" couldn't be unmanned and controlled by the base (like DefSats controlled from bases on the the planet they orbit)? The base around which these systms are deployed could simply tell the GBWGs to "go active", which would cause the GBWG to raise shields and start powering web, or to return to "Standby" mode. If any maintenance were necessary, the base itself would dispatch a repair team to the asteroid; perhaps via shuttlecraft or perhaps via skiff.

There might also be a self-destruct capability, activated remotely from the Tholian base itself. But I don't see any requirement for such a system to have crew.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 25, 2023 - 12:33 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:
All systems require maintenance, and that requires personnel. Those APRs require someone to be monitoring them. Yes, I know that DefSats and Mines have no one there. A rule to make them useful. Taking your idea to the extreme, ground bases only have Marines to defend them and all the crew units are converted to Marines. Then we can have a massive scenario where the machines try to take over.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, August 26, 2023 - 11:46 am: Edit

Okay, I've had some brain drizzles on this idea.
They may be kinda dumb, BUT...

As I remember the concept, these bases are supposed to be situation on asteroids and serve to service the three ring wedding cake, right?

IF the Tholians abandon the station with the exception of automated defenses/robot guards (like the sorts that ships controlled by Super Intelligent Computers make use of) and withdraw their people to the BatS/SB they're supporting.

The GBWG were never meant for habitation. Yes, they have life support, but no crew quarters, no commissaries, none of that sort of stuff.

The Tholian expectation is that they'll be destroyed by attacking forces, so they've minimized that which they can.

All required maintenance is done by visiting personnel from the base they support.