I think this is how the "siege" discussion relates to the topic:

Alan: Webcasters on bases are useless since they can't fire through base's own defensive webs when the base is attacked.

SPP: The base might be under "siege" rather than under attack in which case webcasters could be used to support friendly units attempting to breakout, break the siege, or relieve the base.

Does that sound right?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 08, 2024 - 07:20 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

... and are firing through an additional +1 from the web.

---

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Friday, April 12, 2024 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Meant to get back to this sooner, but in fairly typical fashion... I forget. Getting old, I guess...

One thing the Tholians can do to improve the ECCM of their ships (well... maybe not all of them) is to employ a sensor drogue. This enables the ship to generate two more EW points than it otherwise could, though the power cost is three (two for the two extra EW points and one power for the tractor-tether). A scout (or, hypothetically, a Tholian BATS...) that deploys a sensor drogue can lend 8 ECCM to a receiving ship if both the scout (BATS...) and the receiving ship have deployed sensor drogues. So the Tholian CPA could actually have 16 ECCM; eight self generated (including two from the drogue and eight lent (from a BATS that also had a deployed drogue).

What about the Klingons? Note that a ship using erratic maneuvers cannot have a deployed drone. Never the less, the Klingon besiegers could benefit from drogues on their scouts. Note that a ship with a deployed drogue can also be "lent" two more points of OECM by an enemy scout with a deployed drogue. So my CPA (16 ECCM) would still be shooting against a +1 ECM shift (target ship generates 6 ECM, plus 4 for EM, but can't deploy drogue; Klingon scout with drogue lends 8 OECM to my CPA with deployed drogue. So My CPA has 16 ECCM against 18 total ECM. I'm still shooting against a +1 penalty, but that's better than shooting against +2.

Notice my discussion has focused on the CPA. Can the PCs and the PCX actually use drogues? I don't know. A drogue (plus it's platform with the tractor-tether) replaces a shuttle craft. So the CPA (four shuttle craft) could have three shuttle craft and one sensor drogue, no problem. But a PC or PCX only has one shuttle craft to begin with. Is it legal to field a ship with no shuttles at all? I couldn't find a rule about that, but maybe I missed it. On one hand, it just seems "wrong". Those admin shuttles are used for too many routine functions to be completely discarded. On the other hand, what does a ship permanently assigned to wedding cake defense need shuttles for? It's a completely different mission profile than standard patrolling. On the... other, other hand... suppose that PC or PCX has to be temporarily assigned to patrol duties to meet some unanticipated contingency, in a situation where the base itself is clearly in no danger.

As I said, I couldn't find any ruling regarding whether a warship must have at least one admin shuttle, which would prevent PCs (and even PCXs) from using drogues or web anchor buoys, and could also prevent small Romulan ships from using cloaked decoys.

More later. I still haven't gotten around to discussing how I would try to get ships with cargo packs through the blockade.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, April 12, 2024 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor:
I have to admit that I was relying on my memory for the +1 on Tholians shooting through web. It is plainly established if they are shooting through a single layer and are adjacent to it they suffer no degradation. The Klingons would require a disproportionate number of scouts to besiege a Tholian base and even that would require them to be no closer than 15 hexes from the outer web line (putting them 16 hexes from defenders behind the web), which of course makes them unable to employ OEW. Your use of drogues effectively denies besiegers the use of EM which arguably forces them back to 26 hexes using shield reinforcement and at least dropping your PFs out of the equation unless they choose to expose themselves to fire.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, April 14, 2024 - 04:16 pm: Edit

SPP,

One thing I concluded long ago was that the Tholians are weaker than most other empires in EW capabilities (no ECM drones or plasma, nothing like the Vudar Ion Pulse Generator, Hydrans don't have these either but almost across the board their scouts generate more power than the Tholian counterparts, therefor can lend more EW). But the Tholians are strong in EW when conducting a fixed defense. Sure, the Klingons (or Feds, or Gorns, or whoever) could use drogues and MRS shuttles and (slow, weakly shielded) auxiliary scouts with their base defenses. But those assets will probably be destroyed very early in the battle. The Tholian webs mean those drogues / MRS shuttles / aux scouts can survive much longer and will continue to provide EW for many turns.

The Tholians can try to use web casters to protect those assets in an open space, but it's mch harder. For one thing, they slow the Tholians down (drogues destroyed if the towing ship is moving at high speed, MRS shuttles or aux scouts outrun and left behind); which isn't a factor in wedding cake defense but could very much be a factor in open space.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, April 15, 2024 - 07:55 am: Edit

A MRS or two in a base is incredibly powerful.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, April 15, 2024 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Everything having been said to this point., I still think a siege is the best option versus any Tholian base that has a strong enough garrison to withstand assault. The Klingons (and other empires) would at least have the advantage when approaching a BATS or smaller base of knowing for certain what its garrison force of ships would be and can decide at that point whether siege or assault would be beneficial. This at least has the advantage of pinning some number of Tholian ships to the bases which allows the Klingons to penetrate deeper into Tholian space to ravage colony worlds, (which the Tholians are somewhat dependent on) and convoys carrying (raw) goods from colonies to their Home. sphere and from the sphere to their bases. If the Tholians choose to defend their base and not have them actively supporting their fleet (firing web casters) it is all good for the Klingons. Note specifically that the reason siege comes up as a solution against the base is the fiction story "Hold Until Relieved" which has a Federation ship approaching a base that was cut off by the Romulans, and if the Feds were left in such a lurch, it is plain that other empires would be, and the Tholians would be especially vulnerable powering their webs. I have admitted, however, that the Klingons would need allies and have been at pains above to point out that it might involve more than traditional allies. While Alan Trevor can and has pointed to the fact that "something might happen" that makes siege operations impossible (Kzintis taking advantage of Lyran forces being sent to the Tholian border) he overlooked the fact that I indicated they might be enticed into fighting the Tholians (I admit that it would be extremely unlikely), even though they have no common border. The Tholians, after all, are exceptionally poor at gathering allies, and if the other empires had not been at war might not have supported the Tholians. But sat on their well padded posteriors and watched the battle.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, April 22, 2024 - 02:41 pm: Edit

This topic has pretty much died down so this will probably be my last post here unless someone brings up something new. I do want to say that I agree with SPP on nost of his points. A "siege" approach is the best method to go after the Tholians, since their fixed defenses (at least for the important locations) tend to be hellaciously strong. Instead, go after the "low hanging fruit" (such as weakly defended mining colonies) since the Tholians just don't have the resources to be strong everywhere. Try to interdict movement between heavily defended locations and slowly starve them out. All this makes perfect sense.

Now, I don't think this approach is guaranteed to succeed, nor is it guaranteed to fail. It will depend on the tactical and strategic decisions of both parties (who may modify their tactics as the situation changes) and also may depend on factors not under the control of either the Klingons or Tholians. But (except for Andromedan technology) it is, I believe, the best approach and, given Tholian resource constraints it is a serious threat to the Holdfast.

The one thing I still do not see is how this fact argues against "phaser-heavy" bases, and moving all web casters to warships, which was the original point of the proposal.


Previously, I had said I was going to post some thoughts about Tholian warships carrying cargo packs, as an emergency resupply method for besieged bases. But since this topic has largely died down, I think I will refrain from that, since I have already indicated it seems to me irrelevant to the main focus of the proposal. But I have been mulling over some ideas for how the Tholians might attempt to make the Holdfast more "siege-resistant" to at least inprove their chances of surviving an attack based on this strategy. These would be actions that I regard as being within "historical" Tholian capabilities, though they might differ from "historical practice". For example, the CPA "heavy phaser cruiser", discussed above, was histroically "RPL" status. Few were actually built. But there does not seem to be any technological or economic reason the Tholians couldn't have produced them in larger numbers (within the limits of the Tholian overall economy). Would they have been better off doing so? In similar vein, I wanted to discuss whether some "conjectural" or "unbuilt variant" ships (NOT "impossible" ships) should actually have been built. Other topics might include ship deployment; which ships should be "web defenders", which should be "battle fleet", optimized for fighting in "open space", and which should be "transport / logistics", in the face of an enemy siege.

At some point (not sure when) I may start a new thread dedicated specifically to the topic of making the Tholians more resistant to siege.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, April 22, 2024 - 03:58 pm: Edit

I think SPP has still not made a case for the utility of webcasters on bases. It would be great if he could give a practical example.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 11:17 am: Edit

I still think nobody has told me why we're discussing sieges in this context.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Alan Trevor proposed that Tholian bases equipped with phasers rather than web casters could, with a small force of Tholian warships, be invincible within their wedding cakes. Klingon ships would have to endure repeated volleys of the phaser-IVs and could essentially not harm the Tholians. As a Klingon player, I am not so much a fool as to attack such a base (one with the web casters replaced by additional Phaser-IVs) and readily concede that such a base would defeat my Klingon assault, even one led by a B10. So, rather than an assault, I opt for siege tactics, and as there are not enough ships in the Empire to lay siege to all the Tholian bases, allies are needed, or arrangements are needed to preserve the other borders of the empire. If the Klingon diplomatic corps could make deals acceptable to the empire. . .

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Further, I proposed that a Tholian base equipped with web casters could support Tholian ships with cast webs further from the base (out to 30 hexes) As well as limiting the speed of the attacking force. the webs could hinder attackers as well as providing cover for the Tholian forces enabling the to hit the enemy at close range with phaser fire and receive no return fire, or to isolate one ship for disruptor fire and prevent other ships from firing.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 04:30 pm: Edit

This gets to the heart of the problem. To use the web caster there cannot be any web between the base and it's target (since the web caster cannot fire through web). This requires the base to forgo defensive web, even at 0 strength. The lack of defensive web leaves the base open to attack. Rather than hindering the attackers this just makes things easier for them.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 05:12 pm: Edit

Douglas Saldana:
As a former Tholian representative once observed, (paraphrasing) "When you are too hard to attack, no one wants to attack you." If Tholian Starbases are equipped with the number of phaser-IVs being proposed, you have essentially eliminated anyone playing the offensive against them. "The don't get to play." Sure, it makes sense in a case where you want to be invincible, and you might consider how successful the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been. If you do not want to be attacked, ignore it and build bombs as soon as you are able, even if your people starve (North Korea) or endure poor Living conditions (Iran). I am simply making a case that the Tholians may wish to fight (play), or spend all their game time trapped in their webs until they are starved out (which means we get perhaps a few "forlorn hope" engagements and some resupply convoys being attacked, not to mention the isolated colonies and mining planets).

By Norman Dizon (Ichaborn) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I believe the Web Caster Refit makes sense and should Not be changed.

Here's why:

1) Speed of Web Generation. The Web Caster is much Faster at generating web than the standard Tholian Web Device. When Tholian Lives are on the line, the Web Caster can be fired in a single turn.

2) Energy Efficiency of Web Generation. Consider the cost to fire a Web Caster at full strength (five points) versus laying one hex of web for six points of energy (G10.211). There is no doubt that in terms of Energy Efficiency, the Web Caster dominates the Tholian Web Device.

3) Strength of Web Generated. It should be obvious that given the Web Caster Strength Table (E12.44), Web Casters far outclass the standard method of reinforcing a newly generated web created by a Tholian Web Device.

4) Alan acknowledges the advantage in using Web Caster to Reestablish webs that are now missing: "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."

Yes, the Web Casters would be reestablishing the innermost ring, not any outer rings it cannot reach. Yes, the Web Caster cannot create Webs adjacent to other Webs. Yes, the Tholians will need ships to connect the segments. Yes, the Tholians will need ships to power the new webs (however, see #3 above). Note: (E12.211) The weapon is used to create this web between two acceptable anchor points (G10.1311), such as asteroids or Tholian ships [including PFs and bases, but only those with undestroyed web generators, snares, or web casters; this is an exception to (G10.1311)].

Does any of that negate the advantage of Quickly Recreating the innermost ring if it has fallen? No, none of those facts disrupt the Web Caster benefit. In a hypothetical battle, every second (or every turn) counts, especially when Tholian reinforcements may arrive at any moment. To get rid of the Web Caster in favor of a PH-IV means this emergency benefit will not be available to the Tholian Base/Forces.

Alan also states: "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." This a large Assumption. There will be situations where the innermost ring has gone down (for plenty of reasons) and the Base, in fact, still exists. Are you saying it is Impossible for the Base to still exist if the outermost ring is gone? Note that I am specifying impossible and not improbable. If you agree it is Possible for the Base to exist while the innermost ring is gone, then you have supported the Web Caster Refit. If you say it is Impossible for the Base to still exist while the innermost ring is gone, please explain (not probably but precisely).

5) The Web Caster is useful for, not just reestablishing a fallen ring, but in quickly establishing new defensive barriers where none existed before. Again, consider Time and Speed noted in #1. If Every Second counts before an enemy force arrives, is not a Web Caster able to create the Web Fortifications much faster (with a supporting Tholian Defense Fleet) than Tholian Web Devices?

6) As SPP states, the Web Caster has a myriad of uses out to range 30 that far outweight simply firing a PH-4. Here is a partial list:

• Stopping drones and (especially) plasma torpedoes.
• Blocking the direct-fire weapons of part of the enemy fleet,
thereby gaining firepower superiority.
• Breaking up an enemy fleet by laying web through the formation.
This is devastating against the ISC.
• Breaking up the Kaufman Retrograde.
• Locating cloaked ships.
• Limiting the effects of a black hole or pulsar.
• Stopping attacking waves of fighters or PFs
• Isolating a key enemy ship for later attention.
• Creating a wall in front of an enemy ship.
• Cutting tractor beams.
• Creating a small shield for self-protection.
• Preventing a crippled enemy from disengaging.
• Breaking a stasis field.
• Disrupting the fire of a plasmatic pulsar device.
• Crippling a ship that is moving at high speed.
• Blocking the effects of pulsars, explosions, etc.
• Creating an opportunity to disengage by blocking pursuit.
• Creating a firewall around ships that are about to explode.
• Quickly building elements of a larger web that can be completed
by ships. This requires convenient asteroids or ships to act as
anchor points. Obviously any enemy who gives Tholians time
to prepare for battle will have a very difficult time.

Yes, firing the Web Caster out to Range 30 assumes the Base has No Web around it. What of it? See # 9 below. I would also add to the list above: Capturing a Specific Enemy Ship (which is alluded to by some of the bullet points).

7) Alan Assumes the Web Caster Refit is Specifically For and Only For Base Defense. Are other situations involving the Web Caster Impossible? Not just in SFB, not just in F&E, but in Fiction and even Outside of All these areas? Scenarios, battles, games, and stories only provide a glimpse of the Totality of what happens in the Tholian Holdfast.

8) Even though looking at Klingons and Tholians in hypothetical situations already shows the value of the Web Caster (versus a PH-4), does it not have other uses? Gary brought up the Andromedans. What about the Seltorians? What about Monsters? Space Dragons, Amoeba, Sun Snake, Moray Eel, Planet Crusher, etc.? What about the Juggernaut, Space Manta, Death Probe or Asteroz? What about Intergalactic Anomalies? What about other Roaming Navigational Hazards native to Space? My point is there are Countless Possibilities outside of the normal Klingon Advance where a Web Caster might be more useful than a PH-IV.

9) Alan assumes that the Tholian Base will Always have a Web around it. Is this true or false? Are there times when a Tholian Base would Not have a Web around it? Is it Impossible for a Tholian Base to Not have a Web around it? If you concede that Yes, there are times when a Tholian Base would Not have a Web around it, then you have just justified the Web Caster Refit. If you argue that Yes, Tholian Bases would Always have a Web around it, then please support that statement.

10) Alan assumes the Web will be a Wedding Cake Formation. Is it Impossible that a Tholian Base might employ a different Web Formation? Yes, the Wedding Cake might be the most tactically sound for a SFB Scenario. But is it Impossible to have a different Web Layout? If you say No, it is Not Impossible, then you have added to the justification for the Web Caster Refit (for it now may be more useful than it would have been in a Wedding Cake Formation.) If you answer it is Impossible for a Tholian Base to have a Web Formation other than a Wedding Cake, then please support your position.

11) Alan argues that since Web Casters are Limited, they belong on Ships and Not Bases: "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."

But if you have a Limited Quantity of a Very Valuable Weapon, where is that Weapon Safest, on a Base (with a Defense Force) or out fighting battles far away from a Base? Which situation is more likely to result in the Permanent Loss of the Web Caster? I remind you of the Tholian's Xenophobia and Limited Starships. I'm not saying that Web Casters don't belong on ships (they obviously do), but that there is a certain logic to keeping them safe on a protected Base.

Also, there is much talk about the Limited Amount of Web Casters the Tholians possess. Has it ever been stated Exactly how many? Do we know Exactly how many Web Casters are on ships? If so, specifically Which Ships? Do we know Exactly how many Web Casters are on Bases? If yes, then Which Bases exactly? Let's have an Exact Count of Web Casters and a List of Precisely Where They All Are. If this cannot be provided, then arguing there are too few, too many, or they should be Here rather than There, is ultimately pointless. It is all simply speculation about quantity with no actual data to support it.

12) Much of this argument (regarding the proposal) boils down to the uses of a Web Caster versus the uses of a PH-IV. Alan brings up a very specific situation in which case the PH-IV comes out more useful because the Web Caster is very limited in his hypothetical situation. I (and SPP) are pointing out that there are countless other situations unrelated to Alan's hypothetical situation, where a Web Caster is (much more) preferable) than a PH-IV. That is why the Web Caster Refit exists. In order to disprove this, you would need to prove that situations other than Alan's specific hypothetical situation Do Not Exist. If you believe no other situation exists except for Alan's Base Defense, please support your position.

13) If you are a Tholian Admiral, a Master Engineer, or a Top Tholian Diplomat overseeing the construction of an important New Tholian Base (with all the economics and resources involved), given all the above information, would you order the Base to be refit with Web Casters of PH-IVs? I believe the person making such a decision would consider the Big Picture, All of the Possibilities, and the Long Term Usage of the refit, Not just a specific singular-viewpoint hypothetical situation (about Defending the Base).


In conclusion, a Web Caster has far more uses than a PH-IV. Alan's argument that the PH-IV is more valuable than a Web Caster is Restricted only to a Very Specific Hypothetical Situation. But Real Tholian Life is much more than a Singular SFB Scenario. The Totality of All Possibilities must be considered in order to Understand Why the Web Caster Refit exists (and to Agree with it being there).

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 08:24 pm: Edit

SPP,

With respect, you have missed a key element of my proposal in your most recent posts. You write:

---

Quote:

As a Klingon player, I am not so much a fool as to attack such a base (one with the web casters replaced by additional Phaser-IVs)...

---

By Norman Dizon (Ichaborn) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Thanks for the honest and easy let down, Alan. Posting about things and still being polite is how it should be.

I'm not sure why I even wrote this. I just thought of the speed of a web caster over a regular web device and felt inspired, thinking others might have missed this. Then my response grew and grew

After reviewing Point #4, it is still true just in a much rarer circumstance. I was about to post an addendum, so might as well do it now since you responded.

Assuming a Wedding Cake around a Base, the innermost ring would be 6 hexes total. The Base adjacent to the innermost ring is providing power to the innermost ring (assuming no other Tholian ship is providing additional strength).

So your statement is true, for the innermost ring to fall, the Baae must have fallen. For how could the inneremost ring fall, if the Base is still powering it?

The primary example I could think of is the enemy is stranding ships purposefully in the innermost ring to blast at the Base. Seeking Weapons could also break through the Innermost Ring after losing some movement. If the Base is damaged enough, it might not have enough power (the Base is low on power and has to make hard choices on how to use that power) to reinforce the six hexes of the innermost ring. But the Base could still be "functional" and not completely destroyed (which contradicts your statement: the Base is probably gone too).

Ironically, this actually reinforces my point that , under these rare conditions, it could power a Web Caster and fire it to "reestablish' the innermost ring. A rare situation, but still a possible one.

Andromedans could also jump over one hex of Web, so if the outer layers of web are gone, they could directly overrun the Base, damaging it enough where it could no longer reinforce (due to limited power) the innermost ring, but was still "functional."

Anyway, despite these possibilities, I concede Point #4 to you, as your statement about if the innermost ring is gone, the Base most ikely is as well, is almost always true.

My other Points (1-3, 5-13) should be still be valid. I still believe that arguing about a hypothetical Tholian Base Defense (wherein you will always win) misses the whole picture and the point of why the Web Casters are on a Base.

Thanks again for the courteous reply. All the discussion is good regardless how this proposal turns out.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 09:28 pm: Edit

The problem is that web casters are actually detrimental to the base's defense. Per R7.72 each webcaster replaces a phaser-IV. That's a huge reduction in offensive firepower. You're just making your base a more inviting target by installing web casters..

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 10:25 pm: Edit

I think even 12 ph1s is too much, and will not agree to more ph4s. I can see (now) Petrick's point that the web casters allow the base to influence the battle at greater range.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Douglas,

Well, the point of this proposal is to replace all base-mounted web casters on starbases with a pair of phaser-1s rather than a single phaser-IV. (Proposal is slightly different for battle stations.) Even though the Tholians are my favorite empire, I believe 18 phaser-IVs plus the advantages of web is just too unbalancing.

Norman,

Thanks for the courteous reply. But I do think some of your other points are also mistaken. Let's take your points 1 through 3. Are you talking about the advantages of speed, energy efficiency, and web strength for establishing the wedding cake initially, or reestablishing webs after a failed assault on the base? I don't believe the points hold up well in either case. We seem to already agree that it is, to say the least, extremely unlikely that the inner web goes down but the base survives. And that surviving inner web prevents the web caster from being used to reestablish the middle and outer webs.

So what about the initial establishment of the wedding cake? Well, the very smallest base that can use a web caster is a battle station. But you can't just "place" a battle station somewhere. You bring in a mobile base and then start upgrading it. And as stated, it must be upgraded to a battle station at least before you can even think of mounting web casters. If I'm trying to place a base somewhere and I think there is even a chance of enemy interference, I will send actual warships to cover and protect the mobile base, plus the logistical elements emplacing and upgrading it. And those warships will establish a wedding cake in far less time than it would take to even lock the mobile base's stabilizers (I believe the process takes several hours), let alone upgrade it.

More tomorrow...

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Douglas Saldana:
In essence you are saying that mounting a web caster on a ship makes the ship a weaker combatant. I think the uses of the web caster are sufficiently explained to prove that point in error. I can agree that a Tholian base with increased phasers becomes difficult to attack, and if it is supported is suicidal (even if the added phasers are phaser-1 instead of phaser-IV) if the base has a wedding cake defense set in place. The point is that the base is not supporting the Tholian fleet and can largely be ignored. Yes, it would still be a base for resupply and the Tholian ships can fall back on it. But the webs serve to limit the base's fire power. A full wedding cake essentially is powerless to cause any damage at 14+ hexes range. The phaser-1s cannot harm anyone at five hexes. Yes, the base cannot be harmed and can sit there in blissful tranquility as the aggressors assault the things beyond it. If the base had web casters and did not deploy a wedding cake the web casters would have operational effect in support of a. defending force.

By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 - 05:43 pm: Edit

My comment was on the merits of a phaser-IV vs. a web caster. Since only bases can use phaser-IV my comment could only apply to bases. I agree with Alan that web casters are much more useful when deployed on ships.

On a base the web-caster is a catch-22. To use it in opposition to a "siege" you cannot deploy a wedding cake but without a wedding cake there is no reason for a siege since your base is now open to a direct attack.

EDIT: Ideally, if you want to use a webcaster to support the defending fleet, it would better if it was installed on a ship, not the base. The ship could either join the defending fleet outside the web or fire the web caster while maneuvering in the outer layer of the wedding cake. This avoids the pointless risk of exposing the base to attack.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, April 24, 2024 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Douglas Saldana covered a lot of the points I wanted to make about webs on bases as a means of supporting fleets the space in the immediate vicinity of the base. But I did want to add that even if the base with web casters doesn't have a defending wedding cake for... some???... reason, you would still run into the issue that those casters are only useful in that immediate vicinity. Web casters mounted on Starbase 2 are no help whatsoever in dealing with an attack (whether siege or direct assault) against Battle Station 3. Nor are they any help against that Klingon squadron that, while too weak to assault a webbed battle station, is still causing havoc to the Tholian economy by running around destroying lightly defended mining colonies. But if I deploy those web casters on ships, especially X-cruisers or dreadnoughts, they can be useful anywhere in Tholian space.

Norman Dizon,

In your "Point #8", you suggest that web casters would be (or at least might be) preferable to additional phasers, against Seltorians, Andromedans, or various monsters. Each monster is kind of a special case of its own. Can you name any specific monsters against which you believe the web caster is superior?

But I do want to address Seltorians and Andromedans specifically.

Seltorians: I have previously argued that it would be extraordinarily unlikely for an attack to result in the innermost web going down, but the base surviving. The Seltorians are the exception to that, though it's still not easy.

But suppose a previous Seltorian assault had dropped all Tholian defensive webs but the attackers were too badly torn up in the process to attack the base itself. The survivors withdraw and a follow-up wave comes in to try to attack the base. Since all pre-existing webs are gone, web casters mounted on the base could theoretically use nearby asteroids to try to reestablish the defense, though there will inevitably be "holes" unless the Tholians also have adequate surviving ships to join the segments created by the casters. In practice, though, it's not likely to work against any Seltorian assault strong enough to threaten a battle station (the smallest base that might have a web caster) plus those surviving ships.

A full strength outer ring for a wedding cake contains 1050 aggregate strength points. It takes the Selts substantial time to tear that down, even with their web breakers. And they will need to get close enough to the web that they will take massive damage from Tholian phasers before the outer ring goes down. The survivors then advance to the middle ring. It has 630 aggregate strength points. Again, it will take time for the Seltorians to tear this down, during which those Tholian phasers continue to pound them. The number of points in those webs means that the defenders will have many turns of phaser fire and will inflict very heavy losses on the attackers.

But consider the case of a webcaster trying to reestablish webs against a Seltorian follow-up wave. The webs will contain 50 aggregate strength points until reinforced by Tholian ships, or 60 points for an X-tech caster. Unless the Tholian defensive fleet is extremely strong (and if it was that strong, the Seltorians probably took so many losses that they never got through the middle ring in the first place, and maybe not even the outer ring), there is no way they will reinforce those cast webs enough to prevent the Seltorians from breaking them very quickly. Really, those webs would be little more than a "speed bump".

Later tonight, or perhaps tomorrow, I will discuss why I do not believe the Andromedans (whom I continue to regard as the biggest threat to the Tholians as far as their technology goes) justify web casters on bases either.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, April 25, 2024 - 07:56 am: Edit

I have to say that given than there is ALWAYS web at a base (even at WS0 or surprised) a WC at the base is a very poor investment.

Unless your base has buzzsaw asteroids. Or the corners of my "web of Lloth" thing set up.

And a WC aboard a ship is pretty useful. ESPECIALLY when it is part of a squadron. Ship A fires web, enemy turns, and then Ship B traps them. Maneuver and repeat.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, April 25, 2024 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Norman Dizon,

To follow up on my previous post, I do not believe the possibility of an Andromedan assault justifies web casters on bases. Here's why:

Andromedans: The Andromedans have the unique ability (among empires that historically operated in Alpha during the time period covered by the game) to "jump over" web strands using their DisDevs. All other empires have to "tear down" the webs before they can reach the base. For most enemies, this means putting enough firepower into the outer ring to force the Tholians to retreat behind the middle ring. Those attackers will take very heavy losses from the base's phaser-IVs and from the phaser-1s on the surviving Tholian ships that retreated. Once the outer ring weakens to the point that the ships can move through it, they will then need to repeat the process at the middle ring. The Seltorians are better off since their web breakers can tear down the web much faster than natural degradation. But by the time period in question, the existence of Tholian X-ships and PFs with the "-W" modification also means the Tholians have a lot more power available to reinforce the web.

The Andros simply displace over the web (but only over one strand per jump). "Reestablishing" webs after the first assault isn't really an issue against Andromedans since they don't have to tear down the outer rings in the first place.

The only real use of a web caster on a base, against Andromedan attack, is as a web fist once the Andros reach the base itself. And they are clearly inferior to a pair of phaser-1s in that circumstance.

Case 1: Andromedans move onto outer ring and then displace over the middle ring, to be trapped on the inner ring, adjacent to the base. A full strength web fist will cost the base 5 power and hit for 10 points, on a 1 through 4 dice roll. Expected damage is 6²/₃. (If the caster is X-tech, it could inflict an expected 8 points of damage for 6 power.) A pair of phaser-1s will only cost the base 2 points of power but inflict 10²/₃ damage.

Case 2: Andromedan starts outside the outer ring, displaces over it and is trapped on the middle ring. Once it can displace again, it displaces over the inner ring into the hex of the base itself. Not only does the pair of phaser-1s now inflict an expected 13 damage, the web fist scores no damage at allsince a fist has a minimum range of 1 hex.

All numbers above are assuming no EW die roll modification.

More later.