I have to say at the outset that I think this proposal is unlikely to be accepted since it changes some units that have been in the game for a long time. But since, if I don't make the proposal at all, there would be zero chance of this change being made, I figure I have nothing to lose.

Rationale: I have never liked the "web caster refit" for Tholian bases. Tholian bases are intended to fight behind webs and thus replacing phaser-4s with web casters makes the defenses less effective, since web casters cannot fire through webs. The only use for the web caster if the webs are intact is as a web fist once the attackers reach the innermost web, since a web fist can fire anywhere a disruptor could fire. But even here the caster is much less useful than the phaser-4 it replaces, requiring more power but doing less damage.

There is also the problem (in this galaxy, if not in M81) that the Tholians have very limited capability to produce and support web casters. Every caster deployed on a base reduces the number of casters the Tholians can deploy on warships, where they are far more useful strategically. Webcasters on warships can be moved to wherever they are most needed, rather than being stuck defending one specific location.

Most of the arguments I have heard for including web casters on bases involve using the casters to reestablish webs (using asteroid anchors that have been previously positioned around the base) if an assault has caused the Tholians to abandon the outer webs (which have then decayed and disappeared); but the assault has failed to take down the base itself. I do not believe this argument holds up well under examination. First of all, casters can not create web adjacent to other web. So the Tholians will still need ships to connect the segments created by the casters, as well as to power the webs when the next wave of attackers show up. Secondly, this only is possible at all if the innermost web ring has also fallen, since otherwise that ring blocks the casters. But if the innermost ring has gone down, the base itself has probably gone down as well, since otherwise the base itself will keep the innermost ring powered. And it also ignores how much more damage the attacker will take if the base had those additional phaser-4s, than if it had fewer phaser-4s, plus some casters that can't fire until the attackers have already reached the innermost ring.

BUT I sometimes wonder 18 phaser-4s may be "too much". Tholian phaser-4s will do more damage to an attacking force than any other empire's phaser-4s because (unless the base is caught by surprise) the webs will mean they get more turns of fire - sometimes a lot more turns of fire. The base station (7 phaser-4s) or battle station (8 phaser-4s) are already scary for an attacker (assuming the base is at a decent weapon status). But 18 for a starbase may be... excessive.

Finally, I note that phaser-3s are much less useful for Tholian bases. As long as the webs are intact, they aren't needed for seeking weapon defense. And they aren't useful as "padding" for the phaser-4s until the the attackers reach the innermost web (in which case the base will probably die anyway). If the could be swapped out for half as many phaser-1s, they would contribute additional firepower to the battle at the outer and middle rings, reducing the likelihood of the attacker reaching the innermost ring at all.

Proposal: No web caster refit for Tholian bases, but the "extra" phaser-4s on Tholian starbases are replaced by two phaser-1s each. Additionally, on all bases, "paired" phaser-3s with the same arcs are replaced by single phaser-1s. The "standard" bases would be changed as follows (with similar patterns for X-tech bases, sector bases, and stellar fortresses):

Base Station
360° phaser-3s in center hub replaced with a single 360° phaser-1.
Old version: 7xph-4, 5xph-3
New version: 7xph-4, 1xph-1, 3xph-3

Battle Station
All "paired" phaser-3s replaced by single phaser-1s with same arcs.
Old version: 8xph-4, 8xph-3
New version: 8xph-4, 4xph-1

Star Base
"Extra" phaser-4 in each module replaced by two phaser-1s with same arcs. All "paired" phaser-3s in each module replaced by single phaser-1s with same arcs. 3 360° phaser-3s in center hub replaced with 2 360° phaser-1s.
Old version: 18xph-4, 15xph-3
New version: 12xph-4, 20xph-1s

The proposed revised star base is not as good as the standard star base with 18 phaser-4s (which really is the best version, but may be "too much"), but it is better than the web caster refit version (unless the starbase, for some... really bizarre... reason, has no webs). Against attackers on the outermost ring the "standard" starbase would inflict 240 points per turn (assuming no EW shift and taking into account the reduction in damage for firing through the middle ring). A web caster refit version star base would inflict. only 160 points per turn. The proposed redesign would inflict 190 points per turn.

A similar pattern holds at the middle web ring. At that range the phaser-4s and phaser-1s both do increased damage do to closer range and not firing through a non-adjacent web, and the phaser-3s add a little bit. (The web casters are still worthless as the innermost web still blocks them). "Standard" star base: 345 points per turn. Web caster refit starbase: 235 points per turn. Redesigned star base: 310¹/₃ points per turn.

Note finally that although my proposed redesign makes Tholian starbases less effective than the current unrefitted versions, it is pure improvement for X-tech starbases since there is no 18xphaser-1 version for the Tholian SBX. The redesign gives the Tholian SBX 12 additional phaser-1s while also freeing up additional web casters for the warships - which is where they are most useful.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, February 29, 2024 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Bother!!!

Someone should check my math. I slightly overstated the damage the proposed revision starbase would do against an attacker on the middle ring. I said "310¹/₃ points per turn" but I think the real number is actually 306²/₃ points per turn. This doesn't change the conclusion and I think the other numbers are correct. But as I say, someone should check my math to make sure.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 01:21 am: Edit

This horse has legs.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Alan, I have to agree whole heartedly with your argument against Starbases (and Stellar Fortresses) being equipped with Web Casters.

As far as replacing the "Racial Weapon Ph-4s" with Ph-1s, I would offer a pretty off-the-wall argument for allowing the Tholians to keep the heavier weapons, namely a lack of seeking weapons.

Of the Canon timeline races, only the Tholians, Hydrans, and Vudar have fighters that have no seeking weapons. Among these, sure, the Tholians have plenty of Disruptor armed fighters, but half (or more) of the fighters the Tholians will have in the defense of their major facilities will be armed solely with phasers.

Even there, Hydrans have the Gatling phasers (PLUS Fusion Beams or Hellbores) and EVERY Vudar fighter has its ion weapons. Additionally the Hydrans have the shield wrap-around with their Hellbores and the Vudar have their portable Ion Storms; both of which are magnificent compensation for a lack of seeking weapons.

Yes, the Tholians have their Webs; either triple tier (which means a prolonged siege) or Buzzsaw (which greatly magnifies the effects of minefields), but IMO, the extra Ph-4s are a justifiable compensation for the lack of seeking weapons.

While your argument is a good one, in my opinion, the Tholians ought to be allowed the extra Phaser-4s and, if it comes to a vote, I would vote this change down.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Jeff,

Note that my proposal still retains one "extra" phaser-4 for the Tholian base station (7 versus 6 for everybody else) and two "extra" phaser-4s for the Tholian BATS (8 for the Tholian versus 6 for everybody else). And I agree that the version of the Tholian star base with 18 phaser-4s is best for the Tholians (and said so in my first post in this topic). My problem with the 18xphaser-4 version is that it is TOO GOOD for the Tholians, due to the web defenses. It is unbalancing. Look again at those numbers from my first post, and consider that with web, the Tholians do that kind of damage turn after turn after turn after turn, except maybe against Seltorians or Andromedans. Anyone else's star base would be suffering damage from the attacking force and the damage the star base itself inflicts will rapidly decline each turn.

So I'm suggesting that for some "handwavium / technobabble" reason, 12 is the maximum number of phaser-4s that a star base could support. But for reasons I articulated in my first post, I don't believe replacing one phaser-4 in each module with a web caster actually makes sense. But I don't want to remove the "extra" phaser-4s in the star base without giving the Tholians something in exchange. So while the long range direct fire weaponry on a Federation star base consists of 12xphaser-4s and 12xphoton torpedoes, and for a Klingon star base it consists of 12xphaser-4s and 12xdisruptors, I am proposing that for the Tholians the corresponding armament ought to be 12xphaser-4s and 12xphaser-1s - not because this is better than the "standard" 18xphaser-4s, but because the "standard" combined with web, is so good as to be unbalancing. Therefor I suggest some engineering technobabble that it proved to be impossible.

Note that, coupled with the replacing "paired" phaser-3s with single phaser-1s (more useful against ships out on the outer rings) would bring the total for a Tholian star base to 12xphaser-4s and 20xphaser-1s. This is still a nightmare for the attacker.

Note also that the proposed revision is actually an improvement for X-tech starbases since there is no 18xphaser-4s version of the Tholian SBX. They all have 12xphaser-4s, 6x web casters, and 15xphaser-1s. Replacing the 6x web casters with 6 more phaser-4s would make the SBX insanely good. Replacing them each with 2xphaser-1s would result in an SBX with 12xphaser-4s and 27xphaser-1s.

Finally, regarding your comment that:

---

Quote:

... but half (or more) of the fighters the Tholians will have in the defense of their major facilities will be armed solely with phasers.

---

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Actually, Alan, it was because of the Spider-IIP that I included the line "(or more)" in my post. Personally? I LOVE the Spider-IIP and am frustrated that the Tholians aren't allowed to make standard use of it aboard their carriers.

As far as the extra Ph-4 on the SBX go, your point about its firepower is valid. Is it "Too Much?" Perhaps. However, I would suspect the Tholians would be too paranoid about how bad their situation would be IF they lost an SBX, so I don't think they could conceive of the idea of it being, "Too Much."

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I agree the Tholians would rather have a star base with 18xphaser-4s, if they could. Hence my suggestion that the "engineering" doesn't work for some technobabble reason. I suggest they put as many phaser-4s on the base as the engineering would allow (which turns out to be 12) and fill out the rest of the armament with as many phaser-1s as they can, consistent with the other requirements for the star base.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Saturday, March 02, 2024 - 11:40 pm: Edit

For the Tholians? no it is not too much.
For game balance it is.
Although arguably unlikely given the time line. Take your best Seltorian Alpha Fleet against a a full PH-4 Tholian non-X Starbase, with mines etc. and see how you do.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 04, 2024 - 03:45 am: Edit

I don’t support adding any ph4s.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Monday, March 04, 2024 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Just checked my R12 SSD book to confirm. The "Generic" Stellar Fortress has eighteen Ph-IV.

(This may be nothing more than a fig leaf, but IMO, it validates the Tholians having eighteen of those monsters on their StarBases...)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, March 04, 2024 - 04:53 pm: Edit

Jeff,

I don't see how it does that. A stellar fortress is even larger than a star base, so it can hold more weapons. A humongous platform with 18xphaser-4s does not automatically "validate" a smaller (though still large) platform with the same firepower.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Tuesday, March 05, 2024 - 10:35 am: Edit

For what it’s worth…. Replacing web casters with Ph1’s I can see. Replacing pairs of Ph-3’s with Ph-1’s I can see. The third Ph-4 I have trouble with even if I seem to remember there was some interaction that prior to the Web Caster refit those boxes were Ph-4’s on the older 90’s era universal SSDs.

The proposal offers a reasonable return on investment of the more expensive but still relatively common offensive phaser the Tholian’s use (if production were an issue they would have a Ph-2 secondary just like the Klingons) over the more rare Web Casters.

Ph-4’s THROUGH WEBS are one of the most effective static defenses the Tholians have. Being able to reach out and put the hurt on someone that cannot hurt back is unbalancing, but with a Tholian base assault, it’s baked into the cake. It’s hard enough to try and find a group that is willing to dedicate a weekend to trying to peel back a wedding cake or buzzsaw as it is, but add six extra fours? FUGEDDABOUIT. It might make sense for some one off or at a strategic scale, but to play against? Yeah, pass.

But, adding more 1’s? Yeah, that makes sense because, as you say, it does not make sense to craft a layered and tiered defense that blocks you own heavy weapons.

Actually, having just looked at the Tholian SB SSD from R1, it results a few fewer boxes on SSD (not that box count matters for at that level). As published there are 7 SSD boxes on the ‘end’ of the six modules. Two 4’s, two 3’s, a web generator/snare, a web caster, and a scout channel. if I understand the proposal properly this drops to six boxes. Two 4’s, two 1’s, the web generator/snare and the scout channel. The trio of 3’s in the main hull being replaced with two 1’s seems a reasonable trade there too. The Phaser cap as published is 31.5 (12 Ph-4’s and 15 Ph-3’s) and as proposed would be 38 (12 Ph-4’s and 14 Ph-1’s) and that adds its own utility.

Looking at the SSD page for the SF’s PFs and charts (R12 page 66) indicates that without the Web Caster refit the monster of a base has TWENTY FOUR Ph-4’s!!! No longer will it be a case of SIEDS but SICDS! Four in each module along with Three Ph’3’s…. One of the Oh-4’s is marked to be replaced with the Web caster which this proposal would replace with a pair of Ph-1s…. Frankly, I can’t see why anyone would want to apply the Web Caster refit at that point. 58.5 point Phaser Cap.

So if we try to apply the proposed changes…. Drop the fourth Ph-4 for two Ph-1’s, swap TWO Ph-1’s for the three Ph-3’s, and replace the trio of super firing 360 Ph-3’s for a pair of Ph-1’s…. So from 24 Ph-4’s and 21 Ph-3’s to 18 Ph-4’s and 20 Ph-1’s with a phaser cap of 68.

Even if you choose to leave the fourth Ph-4 on each module and just substitute the 3 Ph-3’s for 2 Ph-1’s it’s going to a significant upgrade. But when the base itself had a base BPV of 900 you expect a lot of nasty at the table already.

In conclusion I’m thinking the Holdfast would actually find this a more acceptable design choice, as it adds capability in the first phase of peeling a base down, when the attacker still has to deal with the webs. In the second phase its gets even more brutal, but the lack of padding ph-3’s means that when the base starts taking hits, there are not any ‘free’ phasers to take. Seems like a good trade off to me.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, March 05, 2024 - 01:18 pm: Edit

The discussion, as always, is degenerating into defense of the base. You might consider the range of the weapons and dominating space through firepower. You are not just defending the base itself, but controlling space around the base by denying access to it. A starbase or other Tholian base that is the object of the enemy ships meaning you have to defend yourself as the staircase, but consider the support of the starbase's (or other Tholian base's) weapons on combat around it, including covering fire as damaged units withdraw.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Tuesday, March 05, 2024 - 09:53 pm: Edit

If these changes DO become official, then I'll savor the challenge of them.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Wednesday, March 06, 2024 - 09:43 am: Edit

I always thought that the Webcaster was designed to stop am approaching ship when the base was at WS 0 or 1.

Because IIRC you can power the WC in EA and fire it immediately. Not really useful if you already have the globe.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, March 06, 2024 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Mike,

The problem is that the web caster can't fire through web at all. Per (G10.83) AT-START STRENGTH: even at WS-0 the base will have a wedding cake constructed, with strengths 5 (outermost ring), 10 (middle ring), and 15 (inner ring). In fact, per (G10.835) the base will have strength zero webs up even if surprised.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 03:34 pm: Edit

SPP: I’ve considered your words carefully and am trying to parse the lesson. I’m not sure I’m seeing it at all.

Unless the Tholian base deliberately lets their web defenses go away (as even zero strength web will block non-phaser weapons) how is the Web Caster an aid to making the strong point stronger.

Add to this mix it seems that at least with the SF that the Web Casters are in lieu of Ph-4’s (and I seem to remember from my reading in the 90’s that its true of SB’s too or at least was if it wasn’t corrected in my personal interregnum of play.

SIDEBAR: Do I have it right that Stellar Fortress without the Web Caster refit mounts 24 Ph-4’s? Does/did the BATS and Starbase have more Ph-4’s without the Web Caster refit as well?

If this is correct, then it builds a personal opinion that a Starbase or Stellar Fortrest having 12 or 18 Ph-4’s able to bear on a single target seems a more potent threat than the dubious utility of the Web Caster and limited yourself to 8 or 12 Ph-4’s when one will have to wait until the webs have been breached to use the Web Caster which replaces a weapon that could shoot through.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Sigh. I hate when something disappears. The problem is that you are Defending the Base and not worrying about why you have the base. The base is a logistics hub and must be visited by freighters. So when you have a wedding cake around it, you have effectively limited the range of phaser-4s to 13 hexes in order to have a chance of scoring a point of damage per shot (2/3ds chance). Six phaser-4s would score statiscally three (3) points of damage per shot at that range. You would have to allow them to reach range 9 to guarantee at least a point of damage per phaser-4 firing with 3 points being the high score. Meanwhile the small freighters trying to deliver supplies to the base are loping along at 13 hexes a turn, slowing to 12 when they drained their batteries. The large freighters can make 17 hexes a turn. So you can spin your web and hide and be besieged watching your freighters and their escorts get shot up by the besieging force until your base collapses by lack of supplies. Yes, I know you are a logistics node, but the supplies do not magically appear to be issued to the ships. They have to brought to your base, and if you will surrender the space around your base, I am willing to besiege it. It is easier than a Federation starbase if you are going to hide behind your web.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Jeff;

Minor correction: Zero strength web does not block any direct fire weapons, except (I think) web casters ((G10.61)). Disruptors, photon torpedoes, hellbores, non-Tholian phasers; all can fire through zero strength web just fine. So why do I believe that zero strength web does block web casters (unless fired as a web fist)? Because of (E12.52) WEB:, which includes the statement; "A web caster may be fired out of a web hex but cannot be fired into or through a web hex, including a hex being created (by a different source) on the same impulse or a web hex that is not yet effective." I believe that (E12.52) WEB: restriction applies to previously laid globular webs that are currently at strength zero, as well.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 04:41 pm: Edit

SPP;

And if that's a Tholian starbase, it should have, by this time, two full PF flotillas as part of its standard defenses. Since my Tholians are not idiots, these are Arachnid-P flotillas; a total of 40 phaser-1s backed up by 12 points of ECCM. If you are within 19 hexes of the base I can remain behind the outermost ring and still hit you for 40 points of damage every turn. At 26 hexes from the base, those PFs are still hitting you for 20 points per turn. A big ship may be able to "brick" that damage but unless your attacking force consists solely of big ships (difficult for even the Klingons to manage, given all the other enemies they have to worry about), I'm tearing up your smaller ships while all you are doing is keeping my freighters from approaching. So they wait at long range until the Klingons get tired of the siege and go home. Because my Tholians are not idiots, they haven't scheduled the freighter delivery for the last possible moment before the base's supplies run out.

And we haven't even talked yet about the base defense ships (which in this time frame may include PCXs) nor the approaching Tholian X-squadron that I notified as I detected your approach... because my Tholians are not idiots. Tholian space is very compact and I probably have "heavy hitters" that can reach the base long before the supply situation becomes critical.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Clarification to the previous:

I believe the most efficient Tholian PF deployment is to post Arachnid-P flotillas (4 ph-1s as primary weaponry) to base defense and "standard" Arachnids (2 ph-1s and 2 disruptors as primary weaponry) as the flotillas for mobile PFTs. The NSCS (3 web casters) might get an Arachnid-P flotilla instead of a standard flotilla. And vagaries of war may sometimes mean I have to deploy my flotillas in less-than-optimal ways. But If I a playing Tholians in a strategic campaign, this is the pattern I am striving for.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Also, most Archeo-Tholian warships can carry cargo packs, at the cost of a reduction in speed (but still a lot faster than a freighter). So if the Klingons are "besieging" my starbase, this gives me another option for getting supplies to it.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Arachnid PWs. With Packs, they can reinforce the second and third tiers quite well in addition to the twenty two (assuming a scout) Ph-1 per flotilla.

Phaser captor mines.

The number of Admin shuttles present, each with a Ph-3 can also add quite a bit.

Include a suicide shuttle in the swarm of phaser platform ADMINs for another delightful package.

Use of Special Sensors aboard the Starbase to mitigate the poor seeking weapon control ability for control of command detonated (and therefore invisible) mines.

All of which has gotten the formerly valiant Klingon officer named Klinger to wear a dress to get out of the DSF.

(I'd better duck before someone tries to MASH my head with a frying pan)

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, March 07, 2024 - 08:05 pm: Edit

AGHHH!!! My Tholians ARE Idiots after all! Phaser-1s on PFs only reach to 15 hexes! So if the Klingons were beyond 19 hexes from the base (15 hexes from PFs behind the outermost ring), they are out of range! All the more reason why the base should also have some ships as part of the defense.


Jeff,

For convenience I ignored the phasers on the two PF scouts. But the real number of "effective" phas-1s per flotilla will be either 21 or 22, depending on whether the PF flotilla can count on the base for ECCM - which will depend on the tactical situation. If the base isn't supporting the PF flotillas due to limits in power or number of special sensors (note that if we're talking about a star base, it's got lots of both; a BATS or BS less so), the PF scout powers both channels but only pays for EW points for one of them. The other channel is powered specifically so it can be blinded by the scout's one firing phaser-1. If it fired both (as phaser-1s), it would blind both channels. Note also that I didn't count phaser-3s on the PFs. If the enemy is within 19 hexes of the base, the phaser-3s in the flotilla would also contribute a little bit of damage.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, March 08, 2024 - 11:30 am: Edit

Setting aside for the moment my embarrassing mistake from yesterday regarding phasers on Tholian PFs, the fact remains that if the attackers (assume Klingons for the rest of this post) are trying to "besiege" a base, they do have to remain a respectable distance from that base; at least 19 hexes if they are primarily worried about PFs but perhaps farther if the Tholians have and significant number of shipd stationed at the base; which I would argue is likely if the base is of any real importance. And because Tholian space is so "compact" compared to the major empires, reinforcements are generally close by even if the overall Tholian fleet is small. Finally, as mentioned, most standard Archeo-Tholian warships can carry cargo packs to act as "blockade runners". They will be a bit slower than an unburdened warship but will still have (in most cases - in some cases externally-carried packs may block some weapons) the firepower and shields of a warship.

All of this makes the prospect of Klingons besieging a Tholian base mush more difficult and harder to pull off. A single 12 ship battle fleet (CR 10 flagship, 10 ships, "free" scout") wont be able to do it. Either the fleet is deployed in compact formation, in which case fast blockade runners can approach the base from the opposite side; or the fleet surrounds the base, in which case the distance the fleet has to maintain from the base itself means the blockade runners (perhaps escorted by "unburdened" warships) can stiff arm their way past one or two ships on one side before the Klingon fleet (with several ships on the opposite side of the wedding cake) can concentrate enough to stop them. Note that the Tholian base knows what Klingon force is present, and how it is deployed. It will transmit that information to the approaching reinforcements/blockade runners, who plan their final approach accordingly. The Klingon besiegers, on the other hand, will find out exactly what reinforcements are approaching, and from which direction, much later in the game.

None of this means the "besieging" is impossible. But I believe it will require a lot of ships to actually do successfully. Presumably the Tholians are aware of the possibility and have stockpiled supplies at their most critical and threatened bases so they can hold out for a while. Presumably they also schedule resupply runs for some time before the base's supplies get too low. So if the blockade is in effect when the resupply was originally planned, the base should be able to hold out long enough for a substantial Tholian fleet (led by a dreadnought or an X-cruiser, and including multiple additional cruisers) to arrive. The relieving fleet will of course be supported, when it arrives, by the base's PFs and fighters, and defending ships.

The Tholian need to be aware of the "siege" tactic but I don't believe it at all justifies web casters on the bases. Removing web casters fron all Tholian bases and replacing then with as much phaser firepower as the base can support makes the base itself mush stronger against direct assault and also makes additional web casters available for the Tholian fleet.

That, at any rate, is still how I see the issue.