A proposal for generator buoys and anchor asteroids
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: SFB Proposals Board:
New Rules:
(G) New Systems:
A proposal for generator buoys and anchor asteroids
This is a proposal for a defining of the rules for the use of Tholian web low-power generator buoys (hereafter called just "generator buoys"), and adding to the rules for the asteroids upon which the generator buoys are suggested to be parked.
Generator buoys are mentioned only in passing references as a way of alluding to how the Tholians are able to keep their webs up during the stretches of time between scenarios. How much time passes between those scenarios is not mentioned or defined. It could be minutes. It could be decades. Beyond that, there has been no reason to delve deeper into their functionality, sufficing it to say, "Generator buoys exist, so the Tholians have webs at the beginning of the scenario, even if it is strength 0 web." However, reading deeper into the Tholian Web rules, the scenarios with Tholian Webs, and the rules of single asteroids as opposed to asteroid hexes, I think generator buoys deserve more defined rules short of giving them a BPV or SSDs.
My first suggestion is that the generator buoys must:
1) Be placed on asteroids and are so inexpensive that they are on every asteroid anchor.
2) Only prevent strength 0 linear webs out to the next corner or end anchors from dissolving, regardless of the length.
This simple definition would require the use of asteroids for long-term established webs and require that each ring has 6 asteroids in them. This pattern agrees with the 2 scenarios written by ADB staff of a Tholian base surrounded by 3 rings (SH6.0) and (SH110.0). All of the other Tholian base or planet scenarios with webs are player written and omit asteroids. I am basing this part of this proposal on the belief that the scenarios written by ADB are correct in every way.
My justifying technobabble is as follows. If globular webs without asteroids could be prevented from dissolving with generator buoys, why would the Tholians ever spend the resources necessary to relocate asteroids to the web corners unless they planned to put a ground base on the asteroids? I'm aware of the use of asteroids in opening gaps in the web rings to allow other units to pass through, but is that really worth the 450 BPV cost of the asteroids, or 150 BPV for the ring involved? I don't think so. (Globular webs, even with intermediate anchors, can not have a gap opened in a closed circle of web. The entire web would instantaneously disintegrate.) Even if you add the fact that it is much faster to spin linear web segments into a closed circle than it is to complete a globular ring due to the ability to use more than 2 ships at any given moment, I still don't think it's worth 450 BPV. However, if it's a tradeoff between having webs and not having webs, then it makes sense to have asteroids.
One of the game truisms is that even large asteroids do not pose any threat, navigational or otherwise, unless they have some sort of ground base on them. Therefore, in addition to the generator buoy requirements, I propose that there be 3 different sizes of asteroids that can support generator buoys. These are:
1) large asteroids of 400 damage points or for 25 BPV, which can support any ground base and a generator buoy. These exist already.
2) medium asteroids of 100 damage points for 6 BPV, which can support a ground base up to 8 BPV and a generator buoy. (Sorry, folks. No GBDPs or GBDDs allowed on a 6 BPV asteroid unless ADB disagrees with me.) These asteroids are seen in one scenario, but are not named as medium asteroids, and are worth 25 victory points in that scenario instead of BPV.
3) small asteroids of 16 damage points for 1 BPV, which can only support a generator buoy. Small asteroids are mentioned in the rulebook, but are not further defined.
With the addition of the small, 1 BPV asteroid anchor, those Tholian players who have been taking advantage of rule (G10.821) shouldn't have much to complain about having to spend a mere 18 BPV for the 18 corner anchor points of a 3 ring web defense. They will gain the advantages of faster web spinning rates as they can have all of their web spinning units work at the same time, as well as those units capable of strengthening webs doing so before a circle's completion if that segment is anchored to a non-shuttle unit. They will gain the ability to open a gap for non-Tholian units to enter the space behind the web circle, too. They also get the ability to initially deceive their opponents to the makeup of their forces as medium and large asteroids are more likely to be harboring ground bases... or not, and you won't know until you get to tac-intel level L unless the base does something eocks can not do. Nothing requires a symmetrical distribution of asteroids by size, nor that large and medium asteroids have ground bases. Generator buoys are too small and cheap to require SSDs or BPV.
A web anchor arrangement of 6 large asteroids for the inner ring, 6 medium ones for the middle ring and 6 small ones in the outer ring totals 192 BPV, but allows for 6 GBDPs and 6 GBD1s for a total of 132 BPV. This group of asteroids and ground bases sum 324 BPV, which is much less than the 450 BPV which would have been spent on just asteroids, and they pack some punch. This will reduce the Tholian fleet by 126 BPV over just havingglobular webs. This defense isn't a recommendation, but rather an example of what can be done.
Along with providing a plausible continuity to the generator buoys, this proposal also provides more variety to the Tholian web defenses.
Using the damage capacity of the asteroids as their volume and that large asteroids are about 1 mile in diameter, medium asteroids would be about 2/3 mile in diameter, and small asteroids would be about 1/3 mile in diameter. Since Tholian PFs can be anchors, it's plausible that an asteroid 1/3 mile in diameter can also be a web anchor. The Tholians can choose the sizes they need.
‐--‐‐----------
The above is the full proposal. I did have another thought while hammering the above out. What if the medium and small asteroids can be moved within the span of a scenario? I realize that (P3.434) states that large asteroids have a movement cost of 1000+. I allowed my dyslexia to miss one of the 0s in 1000, and I saw 100+. A movement cost of 100 would still prevent a large asteroid from being moved within the span of a scenario, but it opens the possibility of medium and small asteroids to be moved.
Since 100 is 1/4th the number of damage points of a large asteroid, if that pattern carries through to the other sizes, medium asteroids would have a movement cost of 25, and small asteroids 4. Medium asteroids could be accelerated to speed 1, maybe speed 2 by the largest ships. Small asteroids could go a bit faster, and be moved by smaller ships, perhaps PCs. If at least 1 point of energy for movement came from impulse engines, momentum could be given to the asteroids allowing for a speed 1 movement after the towing ship releases its tractor beam. The part which keeps me from proposing this is the turn mode of either asteroid should a player wish to change the asteroids' directions. Such ability to move at least the small asteroids would allow the Tholians to repair their long term webs much sooner should they stock a few small asteroids at the base for replacements, and their being movable by PCs explains how early years Tholians, with few ships and all of them small, managed to get asteroids the their bases.
In reading through the rules again, I found 1 reference to "standard asteroids". The label is not further defined by the rules. These may be what I referred to as medium asteroids.
With SPP being out of sorts, I'm making this thread currently active so it will be looked at.
I didn't respond to this when you first posted it a year ago. But since you've reactivated the thread, I've decided to comment.
I'm not wild about this proposal because I don't think it addresses the real problem with the web rules. You seem bothered by the fact that Tholian bases are frequently depicted (in (SH6.0) Assault on the Holdfast, for example), with asteroid anchors even thought those anchors are not being used for small ground bases. Nor are there any allies who may need to enter or leave the wedding cake. I admit it's a little odd, but I don't see it as justifying a rule change.
In my opinion, the big problem with webs is that they require less power to maintain in later years and this isn't accounted for in the BPV. Post-Y160 and again post-Y175, any given base defense becomes stronger because the ships maintaining the outer webs (and the base itself maintaining the inner one) have more power for weapons, EW, etc., because they are spending less on web. Also, the lower web maintenance costs mean that fewer ships can keep the webs strong. So the webs stay up longer as the supporting ships are knocked out and the base will have more turns of phaser-IV fire before it can be hit. But the current G10.8 rules ((G10.82) COST) don't increase the BPV cost for web existing at the start of the scenario, to reflect they improved defences. Assuming the same forces, a Tholian wedding cake post-Y160 is significantly stronger than a pre-Y160 defense, but costs the same. And the same thing happens in Y175.
I've proposed a rule change to increase web BPV cost when the Y160 and Y175 upgrades become effective. But so far nothing has been done along those lines. And, as I said, I think that is the real problem with the web rules. In late-era games, prepared Tholian defenses are just too strong for their BPV.
Alan Trevor:
I am no where close to being an expert on anything Tholian, but as a long term observer, I suspect this comes under the topic, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
Let us assume, for the moment, that down the road, the “powers that be” do step in, and “fix” the BPV Tholian values along the lines you propose…
The expected result, while being “more fair” to game player perspective, particularly for pick up games/scenarios, likely will result in more Tholian defeats and increased combat losses.
On a statistical basis, a shift in win /loss results against Tholians might not be good game mechanics.
I guess what I am suggesting, is, Tholians are viewed as stronger on the defense.
Anything that alters that status, is not good for the game, and could, eventually require a future “fix” to restore the Tholians image as a serious challenge for any non Tholians to attack.
Just my $0.02 worth,
YMMV.
.
Jeff,
With respect, I think "it" (meaning the web BPV cost in (G10.82) COST) is broken currently, in most cases. In Y160 and again in Y175, the energy cost to maintain or reinforce web decreases. Even with exactly the same forces, a given prepared Tholian base defense becomes much stronger and harder to defeat because the Tholians will have more energy available after accounting for web maintenance. But this increased strength for the defense is not payed for by any increased BPV (under current rules). So as time goes on, and "S8 Patrol Scenario" becomes less and less winnable for any non-Andromedan attacker under current BPV rules. You say
Quote:On a statistical basis, a shift in win /loss results against Tholians might not be good game mechanics.
But surely that depends on what the "win / loss results" actually are for late-war or ISC Pacification scenarios. If they are 50/50 in typical S8 Patrol Battles*, your statement makes sense. But if they are 90/10, then you kind of need to shift those statistics.
*Campaigns are a different matter. Each campaign should have the web rules for pre-existing web carefully worked out in coordination with that campaign's specific economic and strategic rules generally. A one-size-fits-all answer won't suffice for different campaigns with different economic / strategic rules.
Alan,
I am not saying that you are wrong, indeed, I think you have accurately stated the situation.
It is just that a major change to the BPV system does not happen in isolation. While it could help with the Tholian issues, it could also unbalance (in a bad way) other empires.
Play testing would prove or disprove the issues, but with Petrick currently sidelined by health issues, it may be too big of a job for ADB at this time.
Alan, first of all it's nice to be communicating with you again.
Secondly, I read your proposal years ago and didn't have anything constructive to add, so I remained silent. I wasn't sure if your proposed numbers were chosen from play-testing or SWAGs (Systematic Wild Assed Guess). This proposal of mine doesn't have any effect on yours, and yours doesn't address this one either.
The first very blatant thing that this proposal would do is to put buzzsaws on an economic parity with rings. A buzzsaw with two 30 hex long strands requires 18 anchors. So does a 3 tier wedding cake with anchors. Rings without anchors are cheaper than buzzsaws for sure. However, it takes longer for any given force of Tholian units to spin a wedding cake with globular webs than it does for the same units to spin a wedding cake with anchors. Your proposal doesn't address that fact. Whether rings are better is a more complicated question to answer, and can only be answered correctly by having the Tholian forces be equal unit for unit.
The second thing your proposal doesn't address is the energy requirement of spinning the web each time an enemy feints in your general direction or is making a mad dash to catch you unprepared, or the economic requirement of keeping the webs from dissipating. See (G10.8), first sentence. Few scenarios have that "before thought" to them, and that deficiency detracts from continuity. If the generator buoys can be used to maintain globular webs, then a lot of rules are wasted on anchors as the ability to open a web isn't worth the 450 BPV total cost of the 18x25 BPV rocks. 18 BPV total for 1 BPV anchors, on the other hand, isn't much to ask players who have been using three globular webs to pay for anchors if they do not wish to utilize ground bases.
Another point from another discussion, webs lengths changing over time, is that if webs were to be allowed to be longer in the later years, buzzsaws become much more attractive for the Tholians depending of the core base and mobile forces as there is only a need for 2 rocks per strand (I think. I may be wrong) and 24 total hexes of web. This is preferable to a 4th ring with anchors and 42 web hexes. Remember that the base can add power to either strand, and any web capable unit may do so also if it is between the 2 strands, but only mobile forces can power that 42 hex ring. I'm not blind to the fact that allowing webs to be longer while also being cheaper to power will greatly favor the Tholians. I'm working on another proposal which may balance this out.
To hammer this last point home, lets look at a situation in which there were no limits on web lengths. A starbase can almost maintain a 2 strand buzzsaw with 78 hex long strands in the late years. Ships, PFs, power augmentation modules, and web tenders make this situation worse. However, 7 rings would have 294 web hexes, only 6 of which can be powered by the core base. It seems as if 30 hex webs is the balance point between rings and buzzsaws with smaller forces preferring rings and larger leaning more toward buzzsaws.
John, several points.
1) I guess I would say my proposed numbers are an EWAG (Educated Wild - %@# Guess). My specific numbers were not "playtested" per se but they are based on my observations from actually playing Tholian base defenses. In one sense, my numbers are "wrong' (but less wrong than the existing numbers based on G10.82) because Tholian defenses scale "nonlinearly". I might discuss this in more detail later (probably in the "Tholian Tactics" topic) but for now I will just give a brief example of what I mean.
Suppose you have scenario with Klingons attacking a prepared and alerted Tholian base. Suppose actual playtesting shows a 50/50 chance of the base surviving. Now suppose you add an E4 (refits and drone speed as appropriate to the scenario year) to the Klingon forces and a standard PC to the Tholian forces. Those two ships are (approximately) equal in BPV and a reasonably close match in a single ship duel. But adding those ships to our hypothetical base assault unbalances the scenario in favor of the Tholians. This is because the two sides are actually buying different things. The Klingon is buying a small increase in combat power while the Tholian is buying a small increase in combat power and the ability to keep the webs up longer as the Tholian ships start suffering attrition. So the base will have more turns of phaser-IV fire before the Klingons even reach the inner ring. The Klingons will need to add more than just an E4 to counter that additional Tholian PC. The same dynamic occurs with Klingon F5 versus Tholian DD or Klingon D5 versus Tholian CW. So there can never be one "correct" BPV cost for pre-existing Tholian web. A cost that yields balanced S8 battles at 1000 BPV will be too low at 1500 BPV, because the Tholian will get a lot more phaser-IV volleys before the Klingons even get a shot at the base itself.
2) You want the "buzz saw" defense to have "economic parity" with the wedding cake. But I just don't see why that is important. The parity that matters is parity between Tholian prepared defenses and the assault force. If players want to play a BPV-based S8 scenario, than equal Klingon (for purposes of this discussion, a stand-in for any non-Andromedan and non-Seltorian attacker) BPV and Tholian BPV should yield an approximately balanced battle. For reasons already discussed, this will never happen perfectly, though increasing web BPV to match the Y160 and Y175 improvements would help a lot.
I regard the wedding cake as objectively a better tactic than the buzz saw.* You may disagree. But if I am right about that, the solution is not to change BPV costs so that the bad tactic achieves "economic parity" with the good tactic. The solution is to choose good tactics.
*At current BPV costs, web is so effective post Y-160, and even more so post Y-175, that you can play a buzz saw if you think it's "cool" and still win against most attackers. But in a few cases, a very well planned assault might cause a buzz saw a lot more problems than it would cause a similar BPV wedding cake, especially if the attacker had massive superiority of force (as might appen in a campaign rather than a stand-alone scenario).
3) You are concerned about the time and energy cost to create globular webs.
Quote:The second thing your proposal doesn't address is the energy requirement of spinning the web each time an enemy feints in your general direction or is making a mad dash to catch you unprepared, or the economic requirement of keeping the webs from dissipating.
The "... economic requirement of keeping the webs from dissipating" is not different for anchored web than it is for globular web. So let's look at time and cost to spin webs. I don't adress this because, again, I don't think it's important. I will lay my webs while the base is first being established and will have completed it before the positional stabilizers are even locked. Thereafter, the "low-power generator buoys" will maintain them at zero strength until the enemy feints in my general direction or is making a mad dash to catch me unprepared. At that point the issue becomes the time and energy required to power up the webs rather than for laying them in the first place.
(Later, perhaps this evening or perhaps within the next few days, I may describe how I would establish the base in the first place in the face of possible opposition.)
4) Finally (and I hate to keep saying I think this or that issue is "unimportant", but don't really see an alternative), I don't care about webs longer than 30 hexes. The rules are quite clear that 30 hexes is the maximum possible length for a web. Can you point to any SPP or SVC post that suggests they are considering changing that rule? If you can, I will address (what I see as ) the issues with longer webs. But for now, those webs are against the rules I think they are likely to remain that way.
I somewhat regret the tone of the previous post but don't really know how to make it better. I regret it may come across as belligerent and that is not my intent. But at the same time, I don't see any need to address issues like webs longer than thirty hexes, or laying a web around an already established base, as the first is impossible and I think the second is very likely to ever be a factor, given the tactics I would use in establishing a base. But if you disagree, could you describe how the situation would come about? Or if you refuse to explain why I might need to lay web around a base because the enemy is making a mad dash towards it, then why would you expect me to address it if I don't believe it will happen?
Alan, don't worry about the tone. That's my "obtuse" quality. I can't be offended because I don't allow others to offend me. What you may think of as belligerent I took as straight talk.
A while ago I made proposals for the changing of web lengths over time in another thread (2 likely bad ideas for Tholian webs), and this thread here proposes that generator buoys be limited to being on asteroids and affect straight webs only. Neither has been approved nor rejected, and I believe I have given decent in universe reasons why they should be accepted and also due to our other conversation, game play reasons. Please be advised that I am not trying to convince you. I am trying to convince ADB, and my efforts to do this is to try to come up with things that are plausible within the SFU framework and add scenarios to the game.
You might think that comparable BPVs will attain parity in (S8.0) scenarios. I would agree if the scenario is in open space, or if a pre-established long-term web defense includes anchors. I would point out that the only 2 scenarios having long-term webs with anchors were written by SPP and "Ardak Kumerian." Every other scenario with webs around planets or bases was written by players, and wouldn't be changed one bit by the inclusion of anchors in those webs, whether they be 1 BPV small asteroids or 25 BPV asteroids. There has to be a reason that anchors were added to those ADB scenarios, and a reason extensive rules were written covering anchors. I am of the belief that having globular webs surrounding bases or planets, and spending the extra BPV on things that reinforce the webs and shoot is an abuse of the spirit of the rules.
If you go to the "2 likely bad ideas for Tholian webs" thread, your reasoning for against the 42 hex length wasn't due to the energy requirements of the fleet of Tholian ships that would have to power that 4th ring in addition to the two others they are responsible for powering or the time and energy requirements of spinning that 4th ring, it was that the cost of the 4th ring at an aggregate strength of 35 would cost 367.5 BPV, and the Tholian player would more likely spend the BPV on something else. That is (S8.0) thinking, and the equivalent of the Klingons making an appointment with the Tholians to do battle at their base. That is, in my opinion, in universe wrong think. You fight with the forces and resources you have on hand, not what you can buy with advanced notice.
As to why I think the buzzsaw should be on an economic parity, look to our previous conversation. You once challenged me to decide which forces would win a battle with a given BPV: a wedding cake without any anchors, or a buzzsaw with anchors. You made it blatantly clear that the BPV that didn't go to rocks would go to ships. That is the "why." It is to make the two defenses much closer to being equal. If they are closer, then there are more scenarios that can be considered for playing.
You regard the wedding cake as objectively better than the buzzsaw, however each and every example you put forward has the buzzsaw player paying the massive cost of rocks, or using the buzzsaw on bases too small to effectively use it while paying the massive cost of the rocks. Your objectivity is flawed and confused with subjectivity. More's the point that you have not proven the superiority of the wedding cake without the benefit of trading rocks for ships. Let's stay in the arena of apples to apples when talking about anchors. If you want your wedding cake to be sans mines in favor of another PC, go ahead.
If the Tholian buzzsaw player could pay just 18 BPV for 18 anchors and spend the rest on ships and mines, any attacker would get slaughtered trying to navigate the channels while dealing with mines and repeated fire from the Tholians who may be stacked on top of the base, immune from return fire while the enemy keeps giving up the same one or two shields. Those starting Tholian ships would only be weaker than the attacker by the BPV spent on mines and web, and would be undamaged if and when the attacker reaches the core of the buzzsaw. Additionally, buzzsaws favor the swarm of admin shuttles and fighters that could contribute at range 2 with their P-3s. The Tholians could also put their ships at range 2 and do more damage to the enemy giving the enemy the tactical decision to get stuck in a perpetually strong web or take the hits unanswered.
As for your point about addressing the time and energy to spin webs, CURRENTLY it is unimportant. If, however, I am pointing out something that ADB thinks is relevant to the SFU for continuity and/or to fix an abuse of the rules, then buoys on asteroids working only on straight webs becomes very important and is a simple fix. That is why I proposed it in the first place. The suggestion for medium and small anchors was so that those who play like you do won't have much to complain about having to spend 18 BPV for anchors that wouldn't have ground bases on them in any case. If your (S8.0) battle has each side with 750 BPV, 18 BPV isn't that significant, and is a lot better than 450 BPV.
Once upon a time there was no limit on the length of webs. Later the limit was placed at 30 hexes to fix an abuse of extended webs. I admit that my proposal to allow late year webs to be stretched out to 42 hexes favors the Tholians. I am working on a proposal that should counter this advantage while increasing the number of plausible scenarios and tactical situations that may be played.
The straight answer as to why you would have to spin webs around your base if the Klingon are coming is if ADB agrees with me that buoys cannot be suspended in space or power globular webs in order to eliminate a rules abuse. Currently that is not the case. In the future, who knows. My proposal is a simple one to enact that does not make massive changes to the rules or the game.
John, I'm relieved you're not offended. I don't have time for any extensive response to your points right now but will try to post something this evening, If not this evening, than within the next couple of days.
I have a couple of minutes free, still not time for any comprehensive response. But I do intend to find time this evening for at least one longer response and you have made several points I want to respond to. Which are you more interested in; my thoughts on why wedding cake is a better defense than buzz saw, even ignoring BPV, or my thoughts on pros and cons of web longer than 30 hexes, even ignoring BPV?
I do intend to address both, but may only be able to do one of those tonight. So I would prefer to respond to whichever you think is the more important question.
Alas, my evening grocery shopping took longer than I had anticipated, and then I got distracted by another matter. So I don't even have time to make a comprehensive argument as to why I believe a wedding cake is inherently better than a buzz saw under most circumstances. I will describe some aspects of my argument now but others will have to wait till a later date. So if I don't mention something that you (meaning anyone reading this, not just John Chistiansen) think is important, it doesn't mean I am unaware of that point. I might be unaware of it or I might intend to bring it up in a later post.
Mines
It might seem suprising that I would list mines as an advantage of the wedding cake over the buzz saw. But I believe it to be the case, for several reasons. One of these reasons is "strategic redeployment" capability. A mine field might be a good investment for defending an individual base. But once it is deployed, it defends only that base. If changing fortunes of war mean that base is no longer threatened (or no longer as strategically important), I can repeploy ships, fighters or PFs previously committed to that base to some other, now more crucial base. But the minefield stays put. Individual mines are cheap compared to ships or even fighters. But if I need to construct hundreds or even thousands of mines for all my bases Holdfast-wide, I will have fewer resources with which to construct ships or fighters or PFs. Much more of my overall budget is tied up in stationary assets and I have fewer forces that can be redeployed to a different trouble spot.
Now, wedding cakes can make very effective use of mines, but they don't require them. A wedding cake around a base with phaser-IVs, and with ships and PFs adequate to maintain the outer webs, is a very tough target even without a minefield. But if the strategic situation changes and I need to strenghthen the defenses around a different base, at least some of those ships and PFs can be redeployed there. A buzz saw, on the other hand, requires a lot of mines to be viable. So if I defend my bases with buzz saws, Holdfast-wide, I will need to procure a lot more mines and therefore will have at least somewhat fewer mobile, redeployable forces.
How many fewer? I don't know. At least so far as I am aware, we don't actually know the economic cost of mines. A "standard minefield" purchased as a "barrier" under M6.32 costs 100 BPV. But the exact same minefield deployed around a base (M6.32) only costs 50 BPV. And if you buy those same mines individually under M6.31, including the specified numbers of command, chain, or deadman detonators, they cost about 150 BPV. Moreover, small and large explosive mines purchased individually under M6.31 are 1 and 3 points respectively. But T-bombs and (for the Romulans) Nuclear Space Mines purchased as Commander's Options for ships are 4 and 8 points respectively. So clearly these are combat BPVs. I do note, however, that M6.0 does say mines are "expensive" and also states that mines once layed will eventually break down. So the more my defenses depend on mines, the more minelayers I will need to keep the minefields strong. None of this means I won't use mines for my wedding cakes. But I won't need as many of them, nor as many support assets such as minelayers or minelaying shuttles.
There is also an approach to sweeping mines around a buzz saw that, while hardly "safe", should result in significantly less damage to the attacking force than simply procedeing down the passages between the strands. The following, "between the lines", is cut-and-pasted (with minor edits) from a discussion I had with John about two years ago, in a different topic. It assumes a base assault sometime after the introduction of X-ships. Prior to X-ships, the basic approach could still be used with regular minesweepers, but with heavier Klingon losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As has already been discussed, I believe assaulting a strong, well-established Tholian defense is going to have to be done in waves. Since a buzzsaw defense depends heavily on its minefield, the task of the initial wave is to map, to the extent feasible, the minefield; and start the mine clearance phase. At some point the first wave will have taken enough damage that the Klingons will withdraw it and bring in a second wave (some of the second wave ships may in fact have been in the first wave but suffered little or no damage and are still combat-capable). The process continues until the 3rd or 4th (or higher for a really nasty defense) wave can actually hit the base itself.
Mapping the Minefield
An X-ship can detect automatic mines, which are far and away the most common type in a "standard" mine package, from 10 hexes away (if it is moving at speed-6 or less) and can make a detection attempt every four impulses, each detection attempt costing one point of power. A small squadron of X-ships orbits the base at approximately range-12, (This range may change a little according to a couple of factors, the most important being composition of the Tholian mobile forces). At that range, and taking into account the reduction in Tholian phaser damage when firing through non-adjacent web, the ships will take little damage from the phaser-4s while locating almost all those automatic mines that could interfere with the Klingons reaching a hex from which they can hit the base.
The Tholian ships can move out to just behind the outermost buzzsaw strand and engage with phaser-1s. But in general the Klingons, due to their slow speed as well as the base's limited power and number of special sensors, will keep this damage to "survivable" levels through ECM and shield reinforcement.
Also, the Tholian's own minefield may interfere with this. The Klingon will keep careful track of Tholians which "should" have triggered already-detected automatic mines as this could (if the Tholian doesn't roll for triggering his own mines) reveal information about the detection range of those mines or the size classes for which they are set.
Mine Clearance - Phase-1
After clearing all detected mines outside the buzzsaw, the Klingon proceeds to clear all detected mines actually in the three outermost legs of one of the strands. Explosive mines are not a problem in this phase because the Klingon is clearing from the hexes adjacent to the strand and any explosive mines actually in the strand will have their explosive strength reduced by the web strength. The Klingons cannot clear command-detonated mines this way and they can still take damage from captor mines. But again, most of the damage will be from the base and from Tholian ships. Once all automatic mines are cleared from the three outermost legs of one strand, Ths Klingons move on to...
Mine Clearance - Phase-2
I stated earlier in this post that it seemed to me that John was making incorrect assumptions about the method I would use to clear enough mines to hit the base. Here's where that comes into play. Based on his earlier posts, I think John believes I would have to move down the passage between strands to clear it. Instead, I move ships into the cleared hexes of the outermost strand. From there, they can clear the passage while suffering no damage from any explosive mines in it, because the ships are, again, protected by the strength of the web from any explosions except those in the hex the ships occupy. They can't clear command-detonated mines this way (for that, they will have to move down the package) and previously undetected command-detonated explosive mines in the strand itself can detonate at full strength against ships I have moved into their hexes. But you can only place one command-controlled mine per hex. My ships may be hurt, but they can weather that level of damage. In his 12:18 PM post from 17 June, John mentioned
Quote:... maybe 5 mines or more per hex...
but only one can be command-detonated. The automatic explosive mines in the passage can't hurt me (at least, not until the web decays significantly, and I don't expect to be there that long) and the captor mines are rare and expensive. Also, they don't have the one-time "crunch" of a large explosive mine and are therefor easier to "brick" against.
Naturally, I don't put all my ships in the web. Some will wait outside the web to pull my trapped ships out of it.
Once I have cleared the passage between strands far enough that I can reach a point from which I can attack the base, I do have to proceed down that passage; and will take my lumps from the command-detonated mines I couldn't previously sweep. But again... only one per hex. And the situation is also greatly improved if I have been able to persuade my Lyran ally to send a couple of ships to support me.
Obviously there are things I haven't covered yet (including some things the Tholian might... try... to counter this). But I hope I have made it clear why I think the Klingons can assault a buzzsaw and take much less damage than one might otherwise assume, if one proceeds from the assumption that the Klinks have to proceed down the passage between strands while it still contains a bazillion mines per hex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the above method will not work against a wedding cake's minefield. I believe the best place for the explosive mines around a wedding cake is just outside the outer ring, about 6-8 hexes from the base. The Klingon won't really be able to take advantage of Tholian web to counter mine damage, as he could do against a buzz saw by the above procedure. He will either have to proceed through at speed (detonating many mines in the process) or conventionally sweep the mines (even X-ships must be at speed-0 to actually sweep the mine), giving the base and defending Tholian ships extra turns of phaser fire.
More later...
Don't forget about the old R0 (detection) mines or 'ship-count' triggers, combined with command-controlled mines, they can complicate any mines between the strands as the Tholians move over or between them.
Alan, you and I both have time restraints. There's no rush.
OK, continuing with the discussion of why I believe a wedding cake is inherently superior to a buzz saw, even if the cost of the two web structures were the same, I want to talk about power and time. In this post I will discuss esatblishing the web in the first place. I will talk about issues involved in powering up an already-existing web, when approaching enemies are detected, in a subsequent post.
The key is to send an actual battle fleet to the location at which you wish to establish the base, and set up the wedding cake before you even bring in the base. "Logistics elements", including, the mobile base will be near by and ready to move in as soon as the battle fleet contacts them that the wedding cake is established. The logistics elements then bring the mobile base into the center hex, lock the stabilizers, and begin upgrading the mobile base to base station and then battle station configuration. There should never be a time during which that base is not already protected by a web.
In a sense this is the same for any empire. If you want to establish a border base on the frontier with a hostile neighbor, you need to have a battle fleet to protect it or the enemy will just sail in and destroy it. The downside for the Tholians is that since their fleet is quite small, this requires them to commit a much greater percentage of their overall strength to establishing the base. The upside for the Tholians is that since the base is protected by web, it will require a major assault to destroy it (assuming a lot of phaser-1s in the battle fleet protecting the site), even if it is still only a mobile base. Once the base has been upgraded to a phaser-IV configuration, most of that fleet can redeploy for other duties, to be replaced by PCs, fighters, and (in Y180) PFs.
Because we're talking about an actual battle fleet with major warships, the Tholians can establish the wedding cake and power it up relatively quickly. How quickly will depend on the year and on just how important it is for the Tholians to establish the base NOW, which will dictate how many ships (and what kinds) they would commit to setting the base up and protecting it. For the example, I am assuming Y173 (Y160 web improvements in effect, Y175 improvements not in effect yet, no Neo-Tholians) and that setting up this base in this location is a high priority for the Tholians, justifying the commitment of major fleet elements.
The most powerful warship available to the Tholians in Y173 is the DP (dreadnought with photon torpedo refit). It is approximately a BCH-equivalent ship (BCHs don't actuall exist yet) but no match for the C8B. The standard D has the same power (can lay/reinforce web just as well) and shields but significantly less firepower. It's real combat capability is better than a typical command cruiser but worse than a BCH. Because the Tholians regard this base as a high priority and think the Klingons may oppose the attempt, the battle fleet sent in to establish the webs will be led by a dreadnought (D or DP depending on availability other requirements), with a CC as deputy flagship and two CAs to round out the heavy ships. The rest of the fleet will consist of smaller ships and will of course include a scout to give advance warning of appoaching Klingons. This is a significant portion of the Tholians' entire mobile strength and would only be used for a high priority base which might be opposed. If the location is such that the Tholians don't expect oppostion, a smaller fleet will be used. If the base is low priority and there are too many competing calls on the Tholian fleet, they will wait for a more auspicious time to set it up.
The D and CC will lay the 30-hex web while the two CAs will lay the 18-hex middle web and two smaller ships will lay the 6-hex inner web. It costs 6 points to lay a hex of web. The D (48 power, MC of 1 but "housekeeping costs" of a dreadnought) pays 7 points for each web hex laid (6 to lay the web, one to move a single hex). Active fire control is not required but, of course, life support must still be paid. The D lays six hexes of web per turn. It could lay seven hexes in a single turn by using it's batteries. The CC (35 power, 2/3 movement cost) pays 62/3 per hex and can lay 5 hexes per turn. The two ships can complete a 30-hex globular web in 3 turns, Similarly the two CAs can complete the 18-hex middle ring and two smaller ships can complete the 6-hex inner ring at the same time. Three turns after the Tholian force arrives, the entire wedding cake is complete but unpowered.
When discussing powering up webs, I will use the term "viable" to mean the web has s strength of at least 32, which means no enemy ship can move through it by normal means. Note that only the outer ring needs to be viable. The middle ring only needs to be strength 1 to block fire from any Klingons trapped on the outer ring. Consequently almost all the Tholian power at this stage is going into building up the outer ring. Let us suppose that starting on "turn 4", the D, CC, 2xCA, plus a DD and 2xPC are powering up the outer ring while a couple of small ships are attending to the middle and inner rings and the scout is putting lots of power into scout channels so they will know whether any Klingon force strong enough to worry about is approaching.
The D pays 11/2 for life support and can spend 46 power reinforcing the web. (I'm not going to worry about fractional points here.) Similarly the CC can reinforce for 34 per turn, the two CAs for 30 per turn each, the DD for 18 per turn, and the two PCs for 13 per turn each. That's 184 (someone check my arithmetic). Because this is post-y160, that equates to 276 energy per turn to strenghten a 30-hex web. That strengthens the web by 9 points but the web will lose one point as the end of turn. Effectively, I am increasing the web by 8 points per turn and will have a "viable" defense four turns after I start reinforcing the web, after three turns to lay web initially. Seven turns after the Tholians arrive on site, the defense is fully viable. At that point the Tholians call in the mobile base. Unless there was some colossal failure of OPSEC (operational security) providing advanced warning for the Klingons, it's a one-in-a-million fluke for any major forces to be near enough to interfere. Note also that the defense has so many phaser-1s that, even without phaser-IVs on a base station or battle station, attacking this position will require a MAJOR effort. And in the one-in-a-million case where major Klingon forces show up before the wedding cake is "viable", the Tholians just leave, allowing the webs to dissolve and having expended fuel, but not having lost any Tholian units at all.
Next post (not tonight but maybe tomorrow) I will compare the situation to the Tholians attempting to set up a buzz saw for the base, and will try to show why that will, taking everything into account, be harder.
I was a little careless in my previous description of laying the globular web. It's actually possible to completely lay the outermost web in two turns by using four ships. Remember that the Tholians have a dreadnought and three cruisers (one of which is a CC) in our hypothetical scenario. Two of those ships start laying the globular web from one side and the other two start from the other side. Then, rather than the D linking up with the CC on the other side, the D links up with one of the CAs "half-way around" while the CC links with the other CA. This completes the outer globular web on turn two while the smaller ships construct the inner webs. The defense is "viable" by turn six rather than turn seven.
The Tholians might also use an Armed Web Tender (Y170, auxilliary engines so it is capable of disengaging by acceleration) as part of their force to establish the wedding cake.
Suppose the same Tholian force chooses instead to create a buzz saw. The point of course is that they need the asteroids. If the best site for the new base is in a system with an asteroid belt, this is less of a problem. But suppose they want to set up the base somewhere and the nearest suitable asteroids are in a system several light years away?
But for our scenario we will assume the asteroids are present. They intend to lay two 30-hex buzz saw strands, a total of 60 web hexes. With 9 warships (4 of them "major" warships) capable of laying and reinforcing web. (They also have a scout but it has no web generators and is spending its power scanning the area.) They can also complete web laying in two turns. But because they need to power both strands (a total of 60 hexes) to at least 32 for the defense to be viable, the web reinforcement phase takes longer, about 7 or 8 turns depending on what the two not-yet-specified additonal small ships are.
(Hint, make one of them the TK5, the captured F5 rear hull with part of a Tholian-built PC in place of the boom. Compared to the standard Tholian DD it is less maneuverable and has much weaker shields. But it has 3 more phaser-1s. The weak (by Tholian DD standards) shields don't matter as much in a web defense battle and the extra phaser-1s are extremely useful. The TK5 is a very cost effective ship for web defense.)
Just looking at those numbers, the buzz saw doesn't seem that much worse off; viable by the end of turn six for the wedding cake, or by the end of turn 9 or 10 for the buzz saw. In either case, it's still extremely unlikely the Klingons will arrive before the webs are strong enough.
But of course, that buzz saw still needs the minefield established. A quick ad hoc minefield could be laid with automatic explosive mines from a minesweeper, plus T-bombs from the warships. But captor mines and command controlled mines take longer to set up (how much longer is not specified in the rules, so far as I can recall) and note the previous post about Klingons using the buzz saw's own webs to aid in clearing automatic explosive mines.
Finally, while either the buzz saw or the wedding cake will probably be established before the Klingons can react if there is no OPSEC failure to give them advanced warning, I submit that that hypotheized OPSEC failure is much more likely if the Tholians are trying to establish the buzz saw. If the Tholians wish to survey several possible sites for a new base, they can easily do so under the guise of a border patrol by a small squadron (which would include a scout, of course). Even if the Klingons expect the Tholians to try to establish a new base somewhere along the border, there is nothing to tell them precisely where the Tholians intend to set it up. But to prepare a site for the buzz saw, the Tholians will be moving asteroids into position before they send in the fleet. Even if the system has its own asteroid belt, this will require a non-trivial level of activity and is more likely to attract Klingon notice.
The Tholians can slightly reduce the number of asteroids they need by bringing in a few web anchor buoys. After all, they will need to bring in those "low power generator buoys" anyway, whether they wish to use a buzz saw or a wedding cake. But this won't reduce the asteoid requirement by very much. Only the innermost legs of the buzz saw can anchored this way. If the outer legs are anchored by web anchor buoys, the Klingons can blast the buoys from long range and collapse the associated legs. "Middle" legs anchored to buoys can be collapsed by sending a "penal" ship into the outer legs to blast those buoys. Remote controlled fighters could also be used since the web anchor buoys will be within two hexes, effective phaser-3 range, of the outer legs. The Tholians would still need to collect and maneuver into position 14 to 16 asteroids for their buzz saw unless they want to rely on a very "brittle" defense.
To sum up, I believe it is much easier for the Tholians to establish a base on a hostile frontier using globular web. And my earlier post described what I believe to be an effective method to use the buzz saw's own legs to attack the minefield, even for an established base. Certainly it would be bloody for the Klingons. But that method wouldn't work against a wedding cake at all. Sometime in the next few days, I will attempt to examine the case where the Klingons are attacking a fully established base and compare the three tier wedding cake to the two-strand buzz saw in that scenario, assuming identical Tholian defensive forces in both cases.
(G10.121) Two ships are used to lay a globular web. Nothing allows a globular web to be laid in segments and connected.
(G10.125) Globular web cannot be reinforced; it must remain at zero strength until the circle is closed and it is anchored to itself. Linear webs can be reinforced while being laid. This would be faster. You basically proved my point that anchored webs are superior to globular webs.
John,
I'm about 80% confident that somewhere along the line, SPP stated that forming a globular web the way I described at the start of my 5:59 PM post from yesterday is, in fact, legal. But I confess I didn't hunt down the citation so let's suppose my memory has mislead me and I am incorrect about that. It still means the wedding ring is viable on turn seven as shown in my 7:15 PM post on June 19. You'll note I actually "showed my work". I crunched the numbers for my proposed force. Do you think the force was unreasonable, given the scenario? If so, what do you think a plausible Tholian force would be for the hypothetical situation? Did I make a mistake in my arithmetic? If so, where?
Note also that even if I am wrong about the method, I can still complete the outer ring in two turns by a different method. The D and CC lay their 11 hexes on turn one as normal. On turn two they lay their 11 hexes and end their movement in the hexes of the two CAs. They then transfer anchor status to those two CAs, which lay there 4 hexes each to complete the 30 hex globular web. Note that at no time are more than two ships actually involved in laying the web, due to that anchor transfer. To make the timing work out right, the ships involved have to use mid-turn speed changes rather than move at a set speed throughout the turn. But I believe it does take us back to the defense being viable six turns after the Tholians arrive.
I notice you did not "crunch the numbers" in your recent post. So let me try. To recap; in our scenario the Tholians are trying to establish a web defense position on a contested frontier in Y173, as a prelude to bringing in and then upgrading a mobile base. They have committed a large (for the time) but not absolutely maximum (as they have other calls on their forces) fleet of 1xD, 1xCC, 2xCA, 1xDD, 1xTK5, 3xPC, and 1xSC. The scout has no web generators and in any event is busy keeping an eye out for approaching Klingons, so it doesn't enter into the web calculations.
Assuming the asteroids are already in position (more on that later), how fast before the Tholians have a "viable" defense (defined for this scenario as both strands being 30 hexes and strength at least 32)?
The D generates 48 power and must spend 1.5 for life support. That leaves 46 for building the web. (I am ignoring fractions, as I also did for wedding cake scenario. Also, I am conserving the batteries, as I also did for the wedding cake scenario.) The D can lay 6 hexes (36 power for web, 6 for movement) and have 4 points left over for reinforcement. Similarly, the CC can lay 5 hexes but between that (30 power), movement (31/3 power} and life support (1 power), it has only a fraction of a point. Each CA can lay 4 hexes and taking everything into account will have 3 power for reinforcing web, or 6 for the two CAs together. The DD and the TK5 can each 2 hexes (13 points for movement_web) and after life support have 5 points each for web reinforcement, 10 for both ships. (Note that the DD or TK5 could lay three hexes once by committing power from the batteries, then laying two hexes per turn and refilling the batteries next turn. Similarly, the D could lay 7 hexes twice, but then would need to refill batteries before it could do it again.) Finally, the three PCs each lay two hexes of web but after accounting for movement and life support, have only 5/6 for web reinforcement. Ignoring fractions, they contribute no reinforcement while still laying web.
Together the Tholain ships lay 29 hexes per turn. With the batteries, they can actually complete both strands in two turns. They have 4+0+3+3+5+5+0+0+0 or 20 points left over to reinforce the in-progress web. With the Y160 web efficiency improvements in effect, that results in 30 web strength points. So web has 30 strength points for a 29-hex web. BUT at the end of the turn, 29 of those points are lost due to web deterioration, leaving only a single point in the 29 hexes.
Actually, the Tholians can do a bit better than this if the 29 hexes are not in connected segments. Any segments not powered don't contribute to web deterioration. So, hypothetically, if the Tholians have laid 27 hexes in one strand and two hexes in the other, and put all 30 "effective" points into the two-hex strand and none in the 27-hex strand, only two of the 30 points would be lost to web deterioration. Except... how are the Tholians doing this? If one hex is 27 hexes, that means every Tholian ship except the DD, TK5, or one of the PCs has been working on that strand. The Tholians can have each ship work between different asteroids, since there are a total of 18 of them. But the reinforcing energy will still be placed by the D (6 hexes laid), the CAs (4 hexes each), and the DD and TK5 (two hexes each). The deterioration still costs the webs 18 of the 30 aggregate strength points at the end of turn one.
Turn two is worse because the Tholians have the same spare energy to reinforce, but at least 28 hexes (maybe 30) deteriorating. Essentially, the Tholians can't really start reinforcing their buzz saw until they are no longer expending energy to lay web, unless they lay significantly fewer web hexes each turn. But that would mean they will take significanty longer to lay all buzz saw hexes.
So I stand by my belief that the Tholians start turn three with from 28 to 30 hexes of web, but with no (or only trivial amounts of) power in them. After paying for life support (and ignoring fractional power (which would contribute trivial amounts of power) and batteries (which are one-time shot until recharged)) the nine warships can reinforce with 46+34+30+30+18+18+13+13+13 or 215 power. Because of the Y160 improvement, this equates to 322 strength points for 60 web hexes, or approximately 51/3 web strength. But the web loses 60 aggregate points at the end of each turn so really the Tholians are strengthening the web by about 41/3 per turn. The defense becomes "viable" on the 8th turn of reinforcement (10th turn over all). Counting fractions and using batteries you can (just barely) improve that to 9th turn for viability, which still takes longer than that the wedding cake.
And the buzz saw still isn't viable without the minefield. And with only explosive mines (since command mines take longer to set up) it is vulnerable to the mine clearance method described in my 3:02 AM post from 16 July. (Admittedly this scenario is prior to X-ships so the Klingon attack would have to use a regular minesweeper, plus a scout, to map the minefield, which would take longer.)
You also haven't yet addressed my claim that the need to move the asteroids into position beforehand is more likely to give the Klingons advanced warning. Even if the asteroids are in the same system, positioning them will involve significant activity by Tholian ships, which the Klingons may well detect. The wedding cake establishment force will appear like the proverbial "bolt from the blue" and will provide basically zero advanced warning.
Just running some numbers in my head (which increases the possibility that I am making an error either by overlooking something or making a math error) if the Tholians lay web more slowly (say 15-20 hexes per turn) and spend the energy saved on reinforcing while the buzz saw is still in progress, they might be able to get a viable defense (except for those mines...) on turn 8 instead of turn 9. I still haven't found any combination that actually is faster than the wedding cake, however.
I'm not really up to crunching the numbers (rather tha just doing mental estimates) right now, so I can't be sure.
I just realized I mad a mistake in my 12:12 PM post from earlier today. The webs lose 60 points per turn so the (215 power x 1.5 (Y160 improvement) equals 322) anounts to 262 net increase per turn, or about 41/3 strength per turn. So far. so good. But if for the first three reinforcing turns (turns three through five since the fleet arrived) I only reinforce one strand, I am only losing 30 energy per turn to deterioration since the unpowered strand won't deteriorate (though it will dissolve if I don't start reinforcing it within seven turns of being laid. Those "low power web generator buoys" aren't in place yet.) This saves me a total of 90 energy over the first three reinforcement turns so I am strengthening strand 1 a bit faster. Starting on turn six (4th reinforcement turn) I shift most of my energy to reinforcing strand 2, putting only limited power into strand 1. At that point, I start losing 60 power to deterioration but am still ahead by 90 energy compared to my earlier description.
So this method is more energy efficient, but even so it is slower than the wedding cake. The essential fact here is that I only need to really strengthen the outer wedding cake ring (30 hexes) to 32, while strengthening the inner rings to one and then spending only 24 points per turn to maintain them. I simply have more power for the outer ring because I don't have to strengthen the inner rings very much. (I can bring them to full strength after the outer ring is strengthened fully and only requires 30 energy out of my 322 for maintenence. The buzz saw requires strengthening all 60 hexes to at least 32... and let's not forget that minefield...)
Alan, I'm not going to respond to either post here. First of all it isn't important, and secondly it isn't relevant. This thread isn't about the merits of buzzsaws vs. wedding cakes, or about mines. It is about proposing that small and standard (medium?) asteroids, both of which are mentioned in the rules and can anchor webs, be defined with sizes and BPV values. It is also a proposal to further define web generator buoys for long term webs. Both proposals, if accepted, would strengthen the SFU continuity, result in putting buzzsaws on an economic parity with wedding cakes thus increasing the number of scenarios available in (S8.0) pick up games, and solidify the propriety of asteroid anchors being used by ADB in the published scenarios they gave to us.
If you want to continue our back and forth about the merits of different web patterns, open a thread for that, tell me where it is and titled, and we can continue there.
John,
Fair enough. I have kind of highjacked your thread, for which I apologize. I will make this last post and then bow out of the conversation.
Because I believe the wedding cake is just... better... than the the buzz saw, I just don't see "economic parity" between the two as an important issue. If you enjoy playing the buzz saws, fine. But I believe you are deliberately choosing a less effective defense in that case, rather like if you play a standard S8 Patrol Battle and deliberately choose a less-than-optimal force for the BPV because you like the challenge of not always fighting with the most efficiient ships available.
On reflection, a proposal for cheap but "limited" asteroid anchors for a buzz saw doesn't bother me that much. It's the requirement for anchors for the wedding cake that annoys me. Even if the anchors are cheap, the requirement still hinders the ability of the Tholians to set up a base in "deep space", light years from any system with asteroids.
As an alternate thought, suppose the wedding cake can be maintained without asteroid anchors, the "low-power generator buoys" being fully capable of functioning in space, like web anchor buoys can. But if the generator buoys are placed on asteroid anchors, it helps to better "stabilize" the web. Without them, long-term maintenance of a wedding cake based on globular webs requires not only generator buoys but frequent intervention (every few weeks or so) by ships (costing fuel) to perform that stabilization function. So even wedding cakes would use asteroids if conveniently available because, over the course of months and years, it is cheaper to do so. But a wedding cake-defended base is still possible (though more expensive over the long term - a non-trivial consideration for the small Tholian economy) in deep space.
This modiifcation to your proposal would still bring buzz saws much closer to economic parity (cheap but limited anchors) and would explain why most wedding cakes also use anchors (lower stabilization costs, long term) even though they are not absolutely required. Just a thought.
Anyway, I will now bow out of this discussion. Again, I apologize for highjacking the thread.