Archive through May 08, 2024
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB General Discussions:
Archive through May 08, 2024
This document
http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Captains%20Log%20Index/INDEX_OF_CAPTAIN's_Log.pdf
says that "battle group" articles of various sizes started in CL19 and have been in more or less every issue since.
Thank you, Steve. I found what I was looking for in Captain's Log #7, which I purchased from DrivethruRPG. It's funny how far back our memories go for these kinds of things.
I’ve been going over the Rules of (R1) in general, also sections of Module R1, additionally Rule (S8), and the article on Planetary Defense in Captain’s Log #22, and I’m trying to sort it all out.
Rule (S8.32) Fighter . . . limits, doesn’t specifically permit a Federation starbase to run with 48 fighters (24 F18, 12 F14, and 12 A10’s after year Y181) But Rule (R1.1) says it is so and S8 implies it in multiple locations, so I figure that’s good. Here’s where it gets interesting: Rule (S8.27) exempts one base AND its fighters from command limits. So if you have a base next to a planet, and that planet has several fighter ground bases, you could by that rule, add 24 fighters for a force total of 72 attrition units.
That’s a literal reading, but pragmatically, if a planet had a starbase nearby, would the powers that be consider such a planet worthy of additional ground based defenses? I suppose that depends on the economic value of the planet, and the political clout it may wield. Rule (U3.2) in the Admiral’s Game calls for a very large number of bases at the defending player’s capital.
Based on Rule (S8.27) and assuming a command rating 10 flagship, do the (U3.2) capital defenses exclude the starbase and its fighters, count the battle stations as 2 slots, count the 18 ground bases as 3 slots, are the DefSats divided as bases, so 24 = 4 slots (?), leaving the flagship, 1 additional warship, and 1 scout for a total of 12 spaces filled? Or are the DefSats a separate issue and the force could add 4 more ships? Or take the 1 and the 4 and convert them into a battlegroup of 6?
So I guess what I’m asking for is a math check. Does this sound about right? Have I missed stuff? Are there rules, context, or procedures I’m overlooking? Maybe I’ve added a lot of subjective rational into the objective rules questions, apologies for that. Just trying to gauge if I've got the gist of this or not.
Speaking just for myself, but with the aversion to stacking fighters (T-bombs), I can imagine having to move some sixty fighter counters, plus drones, plus-plus-plus, every other (or EVERY, with WBPs or Mega-packs) impulse can make for a VERY long turn...
... And sieges of bases can make for games with a great many turns.
Furthermore, I would suspect that, in the REAL world (at least in game universe), the political powers-that-be within the system would be rather insistent that the enemy fleet needed to be stopped WELL away from the inhabited planet; even a few errant shots hitting the world would be like dropping a nuke on it.
With a StarBase in orbit around a world, might the hostile fleet find it more advantageous to bombard an unshielded planet for more effect?
(Not that it really matters, but just thinking of this gives me an even greater appreciation of the minicampaign "Taking First Base" in module C3.) 
Time and complexity are issues we've accepted or resolved. Building and playing a plausible scenario is really what we're seeking to accomplish.
We use oversized paper prints of map sections for fighter and drone tracking. A single off colored marker is placed on the actual game map. Set side by side we can track dozens of fighters and scores of drones with relative ease. It's like a tabletop zoom in feature.
Time is the real challenge. We think we can cover 8 Impulses a session with 4 to 5 sessions per month. That's about 12 turns per year. It could be a very long game. Once we mentally accepted that, it didn't seem so bad.
Loving the input Jeff (and others). It's really helping to flesh out a game worthy of a years investment. You all rock the free world!
There are a number of North Polar ships that have been published only with Federation Commander cards, is there a (Annex 3) listing with all the SFB information for those ships?
So I have been digging around for a while and have been unsuccessful in finding these two ships. Where in the SFB releases can I find the rules references and SSDs for the Queen Eagle and the basic Jumbo Freighter? I have found descriptions for the QE all over the place as well as the FC version, but cannot find an official SFB version anywhere. Same for the Jumbo Freighter.
IIRC, the Queen Eagle is in R4J and has been previewed in an issue of Captain's Log. For the life of me, I can't remember which one.
Jumbo Freighters are also previewed in an issue of Captain's Log.
Hang on, let me check my stash...
Okay, I'm back. Found something that looks right.
Captain's Log #44 has the Civilian Jumbo Ore Carrier (FOJ; R1.A30) and some variants. The SSD for it looks for all the world (at least at first glance for me) like a standard large freighter with a third cargo pod and enlarged warp engines.
That sound right?
here are all the Queen Eagles
| Type | Name | Rule Number | SSD Page |
| QPE | Queen Owl Survey Scout | R4.A16 | CL39 Pg- 104 |
| QCE | Queen Commando Eagle | R4.A17 | CL39 Pg- 105 |
| QFE | Queen Freight Eagle | R4.A18 | CL39 Pg- 106 |
| QEV | Queen Eagle Medium Carrier | R4.J40 | R04J- 34 |
| QWE | Queen War Eagle Cruiser | R4.J41 | R04J- 35 |
| QEP | Queen Eagle PF Tender | R4.J42 | R04J- 36 |
| QSTE | Queen Storm Eagle Cruiser | R4.J43 | R04J- 37 |
Deleted
Why do the Tholians only "sometimes" put asteroid anchors in their webs? I've looked through the materials I have, aided by a player who gave me some scenario numbers and module G3A, and I found that only in scenarios SH6.0 and SH 110.0, do the bases have asteroid anchors at the corners. There are no ground bases on any of those asteroids, so GBDPs are out as a justification.
In SH110.0, the base is a Tholian home galaxy starbase. In SH6.0, the base is a Milky Way base station, and in this case, the rocks collectively cost more than the base.
Adding to this is SH94, which is about the Tholians bringing asteroids to one of their bases and the Klingons intercepting them en route. That base doesn’t have webs yet, but being canon it shows that the Tholians value asteroids.
However, in (SH197.0), there is a BATS surrounded by 3 webs with no mention of asteroid anchors. The webs aren't specified as being globular, but without anchors, what else can they be?
In SL85, there is a BATS with 3 web rings specifically labeled as globular and no mention of asteroid anchors.
Lastly, on my list of web protected items, there's SL258 with a singular globular web without asteroids.
After looking up the scenario rules, I looked at who the authors were. SPP wrote SH110.0, and credit for SH6.0 went to "Ardak Kumerian." All of the rest were written by players and submitted for approval. I honestly believe that some players make the mistake of believing that closed circular webs must be globular webs and that 6 linear webs in a circle can not be closed due to rule G10.12 which has a sentence saying "There is no way to convert a linear web into a globular web."
Here's the focus of my questions: If the asteroids serve no vital purpose to the webs before or during a scenario, why do the Tholians spend the resources to relocate the asteroids to their bases? Either they're necessary and should be bought, or they are unnecessary and a waste of resources. Unless I'm missing something, the asteroids used exclusively as anchors are all but tactically irrelevant to the scenarios they are in. Globular webs would suffice in those scenarios every bit as well as the anchored webs. This being acknowledged, the asteroids' values would have to be before any scenario begins.
I understand the idea of low power generator buoys keeping strength 0 webs from dissolving. I also understand the economics of investing in a bunch of asteroids with low-power generator buoys on them one time and then getting a return on the investment on that money over time for the fuel not spent on keeping the webs from dissolving. There's also the avoided expense of keeping ships stuck in place offsetting the cost of the asteroids over the months or years between scenarios. This truism would only be relevant if the low power generator buoys must be mounted on asteroids to work and only worked on linear webs. If the buoys can operate in open space and maintain globular webs, then asteroids are irrelevant and an unnecessary expense. If the buoys are stationed on asteroids and can maintain globular webs, why does each web need 6 asteroids and those evenly distributed?
Complicating this question is (G10.821), which both points out the cost of an asteroid and has a line stating, "Points can be saved by using a globular
web." This is true on a tactical level such as a single scenario. For long-term endurances, such as those between scenarios, the economy of buoys on asteroids returns, justifying SH6.0 and SH110.0 having 18 asteroids for each base.
I have a few thoughts on the subject. First is that the "low-power generator
buoys," mentioned in abstraction, must be mounted on asteroids, and the globular webs in the above scenarios, and perhaps some others, should be updated to circular linear webs with corner anchors. I don't see how this would affect the playability of those scenarios in any way, so the change hurts nothing. This change in the rules would make pick-up games with wedding cakes more expensive for the Tholians (I can hear them howl already), but would justify their having at-start webs that need only be powered up rather than first spun. This would also put pick-up games with Tholians using 2 stranded buzzsaws on an economic parity, as a full-length buzzsaw requires 18 asteroids total for both strands. The extra 6 hexes of web for the buzzsaw would be the cost of playing with one.
What brought this up is a discussion I had with another player who demonstrated a "give up this to pay for that" attitude. He suggested he could give up all 18 web anchors around a base and use the 450 BPV freed to buy more ships. After all, who wouldn’t choose to give up 18 inoffensive rocks in trade for a Tholian CC, 2 Cs, and a PC, with 3 BPV left over (or what ever ship combination) to bolster the Tholian web defenses? Granted, this would only work with circular webs and not buzzsaws.
I consider that attitude to be an abuse of the spirit of the rules, even S8.0. I agree that 450 BPV is a lot of money to spend on something that can be safely ignored in combat, but it's worse when it's replaced with something that packs a punch.
It is my humble opinion that if the webs are protecting some permanent installation, a base or an important planet, then the webs should have asteroids with buoys as those webs are intended to be permanent. Basically, it puts the decision before the Tholian player, "If you want "at start" webs, you need to have asteroids. No asteroids, no webs."
Obviously, a pinwheel, as in SL003, would not have asteroid anchors, but then it isn't a permanent installation either.
Another thought is an apparent discrepancy between (G10.8), which has the bouys keep webs viable at "strength" 0 (my quote marks), and (G10.833), which has the bouys maintain web strength at "WS-0" "between scenarios" (again my quote marks). Why the difference, and how long between scenarios are we talking about? It is my educated guess that the "WS-0" should be "strength 0" due to rule (G10.835). This would make it necessary for any 3 ring wedding cake to have ships available to charge the outer webs before a scenario begins. Otherwise, in accordance with (G10.883), a base with no accompanying ships could have WS-0 webs, including the outer and middle ones.
What I believe these suggested changes would do is maintain the continuity of the rules without altering any of the published scenarios in any substatial way.
AFAIK, the "low-power generator buoys" are not in any way mounted on asteroids, they're just out in space.
Then why have asteroids at all, and more to the point, why do they have a price tag on them?
It's because using anchored linear webs to surround your base provides an advantage over a globular web.
In what way?
In the way the rulebook defines. (You might want t o review the rules.) For example, Anchored web is in segments; globular web is all one thing. The rules explain the point of that.
BUT, if you have anchored linear webs, the attacker can fire on the anchors until they are destroyed. Then the web goes poof.
Mike, not true. (G10.1314)
I was watching a video about the Army's afloat prepositioning fleet. I guess it's a rapid deployment cargo stationing kind of situation. (I know, super technical)
Anyway, I thought a scenario wherein one empire (or pirate) raids another empire's prepositioned fleet elements might be a lot of fun.
So my question is, how might I represent a 3 to 7 ship prepositioning fleet in SFB? what kind of defenses might it have?
Joseph, look at SL090 in CL #5.
I am, of course, the world's biggest fan of The Surprise Reversed, it's the greatest. Except for a nice BMT: bacon, mutton, and tomato--but I digress.
From what I've gathered, the US Army has, both in the Indian Ocean, and the Pacific, prestaged cargo ships for rapid deployment of ammo, vehicles, bridge building materials, etc. The make shift dock in Gaza, I'm led to believe, is an example of this fleet's deployment capability.
The Army charters a couple of these cargo liners, but also owns and operates their own vessels.
In addition to an expected ready rate of 85% (last audit came in closer to 40%) they serve as a training ops for various sea born military activities.
My thinkng was, 3 to 5 SFB freighters in deep space, untethered to a base of any sort could be located strategically to wartime ops. Supported by auxiliaries, this pre-positioned convoy could respond to supply needs far faster than from existing bases or planets. And as a bonus, the auxiliaries would gain valuable deep space training while protecting the freighters.
Finally a raid on said pre-positioned fleet would be different than a usual convoy raid in that this 'convoy' isn't trying to get anywhere, exactly. I believe it would provide a means for some awesome war raider vs auxiliary battle action.
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, does such an idea serve a purpose within the SFU, does it jive with how SFU logistics work? And would it be different enough from the many convoy scenarios out there to make it worth developing?
Perhaps a mobile base could be deployed at the spot the freighters are waiting at?
--Mike
IIRC, the Gaza dock is a Seabee thing rather than US Army. And the prepositioning ships are US Navy Ships.
The US Army has huge land based depots (APS "Army Prepositioned Stocks") in various places; they used to be called POMCUS. I've run safety at APS-5 (set it up with my pal "Mac") in Afghanistan which was set up to issue an infantry battalion with all their stuff in 16 hours (not the ammo though, that was handled by the ammunition depot next door) with all the needed signatures on hand receipts. Even an infantry Batt has more stuff than you can believe (various kinds of HMMWV, LMTV,, .50 cal, Mk 19 AGL, mortars, 105 mm howitzers, tents, tent heaters, radios, cooking trailers, FRSH...) and (on a different contract) the Ammunition APS-5 in Kuwait (more ammo than you can believe. Seriously).
The Army has a vast array of landing ships, lighters and such. But most of them aren't what you'd consider "Ships." More like LCMs and such.
Guys, do the words “Cart, Before, the horse”, mean anything to you?
F&E already established rules of Supply that model exactly what you are talking about.
they include, but are not necessarily limited to:
Civilian Convoy,
military Convoy,
Tug (acting as a supply node),
Mobile Base,
Logistics Convoy,
Not to mention the more established sources of supply that include Planets (Major and Minor), colonies, Star abases, BATS.
Technically, Base Stations should qualify but there are no BS printed on the F&E map.
I am sure I have missed a few, but the current conversation is premised on reinventing something that is already represented in the game.
Now, one thing that hasn’t exactly been established is a mobile supply point to extend a supply grid far beyond a Empires borders, well except for the Hydran Expedition to reach the Federation early in the General War… but other than the Hydrans, there really isn’t a method for combat fleets to operate in an “Out of Supply” status.
Oh, yes you could operate out of supply with all of the negative consequences there in, but staying in supply status without being in supply isn’t something normally possible under the published game rules.
Jeff:
Add to that list of a mobile supply point operating fleets while out of supply, the Paravian RMS and its ilk...