Read (M7.1) and approach the base at an angle to enhance (M7.1) coming into play.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, December 14, 2022 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Speed 1.

Be sure to roll to detect mines as allowed!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Ginger McMurray:

I fear the operative sentence was "I had a three ring binder." Over the years things have been destroyed or disappeared or gone missing. I used to have several three ring binders for running fleets, had several different EAFs, including one for PFs, a page or two for a carrier and its fighters, various play aids, and etc. They are all gone now.

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Any thoughts on hidden deployment versus open deployment of minefields?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 01:29 pm: Edit

To be clear. Everything in the binders was in plastic and when needed I recorded actions for one battle with alcohol pens so that I could wipe them clean afterwards. A lot of work was invested in the binders. I used three ring binders so I could take a sheet from one binder and put it in another (an example is defending a base, the minefield would generally come from the binder of minefields into the binder for the base to play the scenario). I could track which mines the enemy had eliminated and simply wipe the sheet clean afterwards (sometimes throw it out and install a new minefield based on the experience, but that happened rarely). The minefields were ultimately a time wasting endeavor. Something like 90%+ of them were never played, but they gave me a sense of accomplishment at the time, and also triggered my sense of humor.

I can say that my experience of sapping minefields was a sore point. I can remember my earliest experience. I was Kzinti attacking the Lyrans and had no minesweeper. My lead battlecruiser was deep into the minefield and had taken heavy shield damage from the mines. I decided on a "relief in place" and sent in another battlecruiser before pulling the damaged ship out. A command detonated NSM then damaged both ships. And with Lyran reinforcements coming I had no real choice but to retreat.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Joseph Jackson:

I am not one tp ask that. Mines were ALWAYS hidden when I played. The first mine I ever hit was laid by a Hydron and I was led across it in my Lyran battlecruiser. It was, however, a key moment in SFB, because as a result I bought my own copy of the rules. Shortly thereafter I was the person who would be asked for rules questions.

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 02:50 pm: Edit

I've also always played hidden mines.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 05:25 pm: Edit

For what it is worth. And I am sorry if I am both selling a product and sounding like I am tooting my own horn, and further perhaps it does not have enough detail. The cover story to Issue #9 of Captian's Log included a "behind the story article which explained how the minefield was breached in the story. Which might be useful.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 07:46 pm: Edit

That made me dig out my copy pf CAP LOG9 and read it

By Ginger McMurray (Gingermcmurray) on Thursday, December 15, 2022 - 09:43 pm: Edit

You're such a good salesman I ran off to warehouse23 and bought it. It was only while dropping it into my folder that I realized I already owned it. LOL

By C. Cox (Theletterc) on Wednesday, July 12, 2023 - 04:17 pm: Edit

So I was reading D14.4, "Tactical Notes on E.D.R." and I think that the tactical point may be misleading. IDK if this is the right board for this or not, but here we go.

The tactical aside here highlights a trade-off between chosing a higher/lower damage control number to destroy for EDR and says that "Marking out a lower box gives you fewer repairs, but you are almost guaranteed to make them."


I take this to mean that the author is suggesting that probability of a successful repair is increasing as the damage control selection decreases (holding the total number of labs being used for all repairs fixed). The issue here is coure that the roll has be less than or equal to the crossed out DC box. So on the surface, it might not be obvous that there will be a greater chance of success given that the probability of success per roll has decreased even as the number of rolls may increase.

There's still a few ways to think about this:

1) Is it the probability of repairing at least 1 box?
2) Is it the probability of repairing 1 specific box?
3) Is it the expected number of repairs made?

We can work with this in the abstract, but for ease, let's focus on a D7 with damage control (DC) options 2 and 4 and 4 labs to work with. For exposition, suppose it has 4 damaged disruptors. The quesion is if the D7 really wants to repair one or more distruptors (but really wants to be sure it gets one) is it ever better off choosing the 2 over the 4 like the last paragraph of D14.4 implies?

Our above questions now become

1) What is the probability of repairing at least 1 disruptor if the player chooses DC 2 versus the 4?
2) What is the probability of repairing specifically distruptor A if the player chooses DC 2 versus the 4? (and how does lab allocation affect the trade-off?)
3) What are the expected number of repaired disruptors if it chooses the 2 or the 4?

The good news these are all binomial problems with easy solutions. Asymmetric lab allocations can be a bit of a wrinkle for question 3, but not much.

The interesting answer to question 1 is that the the probability of at least one repair does not depend how many lab allocations go to which box. It is just a function of the selected DC and the total number of labs allocated. This is just 1-Pr(0 successful repairs) and can be read straight off a binomial table. It is strictly increasing in either total lab allocation or the DC selected. If you just want to get 1 and have a fixed ammount of energy to allocate going higher on the DC raises the probability of success. For DC-4 the probability of at least 1 success with four labs is 0.99, at DC-2, it's only 0.8.

Question 2 is also straight forward and may be more inline with what the text was actually trying to suggest. Here the trade-off is between potentially more dice versus a lower target roll. It should be clear that holding the number of labs fixed, it's better to raise the target roll by selecting the higher DC, but this is where allocation of labs across repairs comes into play.

So if you're really focused on repairing a single make-or-break box how many labs do you need to allocate at DC-2 to do better than allocating 1 lab at DC-4? 3! At 1 lab at DC-4 as a 2/3 chance of repair, for DC-2 1, 2, and 3 labs have a 1/3, 5/9, and appox. 0.7 chance. The benefit of more dice is almost entirely eliminated by the lower roll threshold until you allocate 3 labs to one box at DC-2, then they're almost the same.

The final question is a little more interesting and a little tricker to do analytically, so I ended up simulating parts of it. But, if you're just interested in getting systems online, the higher DC number is again your friend and once you pick a DC number you should allocate labs evenly. For DC-4 with 1 lab on each box, you get an average of 2 and 2/3 boxes back. With DC-2 the best you can do is 1 and 1/9 with 2 labs going to each box. Interestingly, using DC-4 but only allocating labs to 2 boxes (3-1 or 2-2) will still do better on average than any lab allocation at DC-2 (returning 1.6 and 1.777, boxes on average, respectively).

There are some lab allocations where DC-2 can be (slightly) better. One case is if the DC-4 player allocates all four labs to one repair. Here they all but are certain to get it (Pr approx 0.99), but the expected number of repairs is just that (nearly) 1. Unless the DC-2 player also allocates all four labs to one box, they will have a larger expected return (but not by much, remember the best expected return was 1.1 boxes at DC-2 with four labs). In every other way, I could think of the higher number provides more return.


Going back to one interesting case. Returing to the D7, suppose the player *really wants* a disruptor but has some other repairs that would be nice. The text in D14.4 might lead them to think that choosing DC-2 is a good idea as it says they're almost guaranteed to make it. They might then choose to allocate 3 labs to the disruptor and 1 to something else or all four labs to the disruptor. These strategies yield a probability of disruptor repair at about 0.7 and 0.8, respectively and return an average of 1.03 and 0.8 repaired boxes total, respectively.

The same player chosing the burn the DC 4 box and allocating 1 lab each to four different repairs has a 2/3 probability of repairing the disruptor (pretty close to that 0.7 above) and gets an average return of 2 and 2/3 boxes. If they allocate 2 labs to the distruptor and 1 box each to two other repairs, the probability of the disruptor repair is 8/9 (better than DC-2 option even with four labs on the job) and gets an average of 2 and 2/9 boxes back.

Of course, there are other reasons why a player may chose not to burn their higher DC number, but I think the tactical statement in D14.4 is misleading at best. If you're looking for as close to as you can get to "guaranteed" repairs, you'll be better off burning the higher DC number. The reduced chance of success for lower numbers just kills any benefits (again holding energy allocation to the labs fixed).

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 14, 2023 - 02:57 pm: Edit

C. Cox:
The example given is a Federation Heavy Cruiser. Referencing the SSD shows it has eight labs. If the ship allocated 24 points of power. three points to each lab, and burned a two box on its damage control track, it would have four chances to roll repair on each of two damaged systems. While complete failure is still possible (there is a running refrain of Federation players complaining that they reached Range 2 and missed with all four photons, heck, I have done it) four chances for a 1 or 2 is fairly good odds (although in "Richtofen's War" I was downed with a critical hit to my controls that I was unable to clear (required a roll of one or two, and I had about eight turns to try) before the enemy fighter locked onto my tail and shot me down). Note that the example also covered the tactical situation in stating the ship needed to "pull out of range" before doing the repair. It is hard to come up with 24 points of power for E.D.R. when someone is shooting at you. Even harder to do on a fixed map. The point of the tactic is to make the player (you) think about all the options open to him, or her, and not to simply burn the best damage control box on the ship (or base) without considering the other options. Heck, the Klingon D7 can run around with the Boom Impulse engine cut out of the circuit, providing no power, but how many Klingons do you know who do it? Since it cannot be used for movement while the boom is attached, are you really going to waste the point of power, and fly your Klingon D7 as if it only had 38 points of power generation?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, July 14, 2023 - 03:15 pm: Edit

C. Cox:
Players also only play with free movement. In a game where we were using plotted movement my Klingon D7 moved in front of a Hydran Dragoon at one (1) hex Range. You can bet I "swallowed my gum," The Hydran player announced he was "narrow salvoing four overloaded hellebores". I started to suggest to him that that was "risky," but then I mentally shrugged my shoulders as "what was the risk to him in doing that.' As fate would have it, he did roll two sixes (1 chance in 36) and missed. His phasers did penetrate my shield for a few internals.

By C. Cox (Theletterc) on Wednesday, July 19, 2023 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Steve: Yeah! This is what's interesting about the problem (to me at least).

The D7/CA context doesn't matter here, I only chose the D7 so I could focus on smaller numbers, but everything carries over for more labs.

In the CA case you put it as "four chances to roll repair on two damaged systems" with the implication (correct me if I'm wrong) that it might be be easier to roll a 1-2 on four rolls than a 1-4 on two rolls.

In the case of the former (burning the 2 to get 4 rolls with 8 labs evenly divide), the probability of repairing at least 1 of the two boxes is about 0.80. The probability of repairing both is about 0.64

In the latter (burning the 4 to get 2 rolls per box with 8 labs evenly divided) the probability of repairing at least one of the exact same two boxes is about 0.99 and the probability of repairing both is about 0.79.

Of course, there are other reasons to not burn a 4, but my main point is that conditional on assigning a set number of labs to the problem (i.e., holding power allocation for EDR fixed), your outcomes are always better (in expectation) with the higher threshold for success than by adding more dice at the lower level.

To put this another way, if you give me any allocation of labs for EDR with damage control 2, I can improve your expected outcomes with damage control 4 on at least any of the following metrics:

1. Expected number of repairs
2. Probability of at least 1 successful repair
3. Probability of fixing 1 specific box
4. Probability of fixing exactly 2 specific boxes

The gap in outcomes 2-4 shrinks as the total number of allocated labs increases, but it never fully closes.

So the tl;dr here is that the tactical trade-off shouldn't be thought of in terms of more dice/better probabilities, because better probabilities wins every time under these rules. The actual trade-off is if you need that higher damage control rating later in the scenario (for another EDR or shield repair or whatever).


I'm not sure I understand relevance of the follow up about boom impulse or the Hydrans though, could you say more about how that factors into EDR decisions/probabilities?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, July 19, 2023 - 03:49 pm: Edit

C. COX:

In one game I noticed that one of my fellow Klingon players was not apparently using all of his power systems. A brief discussion turned up that he was going into battle on Turn #1 with his boom impulse engine turned off. He had not even reached battle range, and was wasting a point of power. Naturally this resulted in no little exasperation on the part of the Klingons (three to a side we were fighting Kzintis I believe, it has been many years and only the salient points stick out).

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Saturday, February 17, 2024 - 11:13 pm: Edit

The thread of Starbase Tryouts made me think of something weird. While I haven't tested this (yet), I'd still like to put it out for discussion.

OUTLAYER MINES

(by Jeff Anderson U.S.S. California)

When establishing a minefield around a base, remember that a base is able to instruct Command-Controlled Mines (M5.2) as far as fifty hexes away from the base (M5.211).

Also remember that Command-Controlled Mines do NOT contribute to the minefield detection threshhold of six AUTOMATIC (emphasis mine; from Jeff. Pun NOT intended but enjoyed by poster nonetheless) mines within ten hexes (M7.11).

Also remember that only mines in an automatic mode can be detected by the standard Mine Detection Method (M7.21).

That means that, aside from the prohibition against having a mine right next to the entry hex of the base attackers, most any hex in the deep vicinity of a base might have a mine.

Outlayer mines are individual large Command-Controlled Mines placed randomly within controlling range that would be undetectable unless the defending player chooses to activate them (M5.203).

While it is true that Outlayer mines are unlikely to ever be in position to directly damage an attacker, their mere THREAT can (theoretically) be enough to affect the maneuvers of an attacking force.

Think about it; the one hex blast radius can mean even ships separated by having one hex between them can have multiple units damaged by a single Outlayer. Theoretically, a PFT that releases its whole flotilla at once can have them all gutted by an undetected Outlayer. Fighter squadrons are potentially even more vulnerable.

Thus, if an opponent has reason to suspect there may be Outlayer mines near a base, they may feel the need to spread their ships out even further; two hexes between any two ships.

In the case of small bases (MBs?) that have a defending ship squadron (or Gunboat Flotilla) as their primary protection, it enables the mobile defenders to be concentrated more than the attacking force.

Anyhow, this is kind of a basic idea that's been running through my head (along with quite the migraine). What do you folks think of this? Have any of y'all tried this trick, and if so, how has it worked?

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Sunday, February 18, 2024 - 10:53 am: Edit

I've done some 'outlayer' mine settings of sorts within the minefield proper, intent on results similar to what you're suggesting. I think it's a viable tactic so long as one accepts the inherent limitations. Those being economic cost and the probability of success. A very delicate balance.

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Saturday, February 24, 2024 - 07:20 pm: Edit

Soooo:
If there was a starbase in hex 2217, a planet in 2420, and a moon in 1514, what would be the minimum defensive amenities to add to the base/system defense?
I'm not talking ships or minefields, I'm talking defensive satellites, ground bases, etc.
Would a ring of defensive satellites around the planet and 3 ground bases on the moon be a reasonable decision? Too much? Too little?
The starbase has as many as 48 fighters, a mine field and warship defenders, but leaving the planet and moon void of defensive fire seems odd.
Thoughts?

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, February 25, 2024 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Don't think there're any "Hard-and-Fast" rules, but my (oversized) gut tells me that any planet that has a Starbase in orbit around it would likely have been selected for the honor based on being a major contributor towards its construction.

My reason for thinking this is that in the original source material (the classic TV series), there were a few episodes where the Enterprise was at a world that IN THE SCRIPT were referred to as "Starbase 'X'" (with "X" being a number).

This suggests (TO ME) that a huge facility like a Starbase would normally only be built in places where such capabilities are critically needed, but where there's no world nearby to provide such supports, or if it WERE in orbit around a planet (such as the Spacedock facility in the movies that're outside the license), the world in question would have to be one of those "Super Worlds" which, if lost, would possibly mean "Losing the War."

Again, this is my opinion, but there would likely be some pretty major civilian support facilities Dirtside. Civilian Planetary Ops Base, small ground mining stations, small ground agro stations, etcetera, etcetera, for ground economic assets, and perhaps as much as the Starbase itself in terms of GBDPs, Ground Missile Bases, Fighter (Bomber) bases, yadda-yadda.

Anyhow, Joseph, those are my thoughts (? ?). Other folks will likely disagree.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Monday, February 26, 2024 - 07:56 am: Edit

Starbases are built in the location needed. If it's above a planet, great. But the canon has many of them in free space because that is where they need to be for their mission.

If you have a major system, you will already have a substantial "national guard" presence (PDU, fighters, national guard & customs ships) plus an early warning network.

By Joseph Jackson (Bonneville) on Monday, February 26, 2024 - 05:57 pm: Edit

I'm inclined to agree with both of you,Mike and Jeff. Could it be said that if a Starbase is in close proximity to a Class M planet, that it might be that it is a 'major' world (both highly developed and highly defended), or it could also be based on critical defensive necessity, and the world is largely immaterial (thus its development and defensive nature would be highly variable)?

I recall reading an article in a Captains Log about colonial defensive development of planets. I think I'll have to go looking for that. Probably it would serve as a good guide for deciding what would be appropriate for a starbase/planet scenario.
Also, didn't the Klingons destroy a starbase at the onset of the General War? Is there anything published with more info on that battle? That would be interesting reading.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 26, 2024 - 07:10 pm: Edit

IIRC at the start of the General War the Klingons destroyed the 4th and 7th fleet starbases in the Northwest and South of Federation space, respectively. They went around 3rd fleet starbase. I cannot recall if they got around to destroying it later.

In F&E (which is no good measure for SFB), SBs are placed primarily for having hard anchors for 1) supply, 2) retrograde points, 3) strategic move nodes and 4) repair points. Therefore, they were primarily located in forward deployed areas. That being said, as an empire expanded, historical SBs were not dismantled. Thus, at the onset of the general war, SBs were typically several (2-4 hexes) hexes away from a neutral zone. Large empires (the Federation and Klingons) had multiple internal SBs (the Klingons and Feds had 3 in their capital system, all other empires had 1 in the capital system - Feds had 3 more just outside the capital system).

While playing F&E it is very common to "grow" a starbase very near an enemy capital. For example, it is very common for the Coalition to place one or even TWO co-located starbases within 2 hexes of the Kzinti capital (in F&E standard ships can move 6 hexes a turn by "operational" movement). Often the Kzinti cannot stop this, due to the lopsided shipcounts available to the Coalition.

In the Hydran theater is more common to capture the Hydran capital and then put 1 or 2 starbases right in the capital system to help the Coalition defend the system for the rest of the game. Flying the flags of the Klingons and Lyrans right over Hydrax Major, former capital of the Hydrans.

So, SB placement has a number of factors, and any historical scenario should take this into account. What is more important is not how major or minor any planet is, but more what is the strategic value of the SB in view of the factors I enumerated above.

That being said, SBs placed in the same hex as "major" planets are tougher, as a greater number of planetary defense units are allowed at major planets. Similarly, SBs at a minor planet are often tougher than SBs in open space due to the PDUs at the minor planet. But all three SB locations may be present in each empire (at a major planet, at a minor planet, or in open space).

Bottom line: SB placement is only weakly correlated with planetary location - except for the capital (which always has a starbase). In F&E, the ONLY starbases which *begin* the general war are over a planet located in capital systems.

As for assaulting SBs, this is *very* painful for the attacking player (in F&E) because the starbase (which is very powerful) and any planetary defense units are not included in the defending fleet's command limits. This makes attacking a capital planet (which often has maximum PDUs) exceptionally painful - entire fleets are wiped out in the process of reducing capital defenses.

Imagine taking a 14 ship attacking fleet against a starbase defended by another 14 ship defending fleet. And in F&E there's no rule S8.0. So it's not uncommon to see the attacking and defending fleets filled out with DNs, BTs, and CCs.

Ugly.

Hope that is helpful. If not, I'll recloak and disengage...

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, December 08, 2024 - 11:46 am: Edit

I could put this under any plasma using race. So general should work.

Plasma Sabot vs bases:

When attacking a base with Plasma. You want to stay out of phaser IV range as much as possible. Dipping into range 15 and out to avoid more than a few phaser IV shots. Gives 35 for a plasma R and 22 for a S. Plasma Sabot can be timed to give plasma 4 more moves. You can launch at range 18 or 19 and still do the 35 or 22. Best to load and then Hold beforehand but can be done.

To reach range 10 You will only gain 2 more moves and well range 12 is better than 10 for phaser IVs.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Sunday, December 08, 2024 - 10:23 pm: Edit

A reasonable idea, Vandar, but please remember that bases have other defenses.

I know that, if the Plasma firing ship is out of expected Ph-IV range, I have no qualms about using the big guns for point blank defensive fire against the incoming Plasma torpedoes. Two of them will basically eliminate a Plasma-S at the ranges you're talking about.

(Yeah, it would still do a point or two of shield damage, but my allowing it to do so would tell me if it were a pseudo or not... )

Then there's the fighter squadron; most bases have them, and by the time Plasma Sabots are fielded, everyone is pretty much using the top-notch fighters that have two Ph-3s. A full squadron of those can be, with average dice rolls as point blank range, expected to take out forty four points of plasma damage.

Then there's the minefield(s).

Mind you, this is all on the turns when you launch your Plasmas. On the turns when you're reloading, the base defender can be sniping at extreme range on your ships, sanding down the shields.

Also, if you launch enough Plasma to overwhelm all that defensive fire, it may prompt the base commander to launch a weasel; with shuttle decks, there can be enough ADMIN available to put out waves of weasels.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, December 09, 2024 - 07:27 pm: Edit

All very good points. More defenses mean more attacking ships. Fighters and the Phasers can take out plasma. Then there is using A WW. As well as ECM shifts.

First You must draw of the defending ships. Sending a force large enough to draw of the defenders to protect a vital asset. Now you have only the base defenses to worry about.

I have attacked bases using Plasma as Roms. Cloaking between launches are better firing in sequence. Enveloper's make a R torp 25 points into 50. (The thought of the power needed to do so as Sabot ouch.) reducing the base. Against fighters firing a bunch of Fs are G torps at fighters can Wittle them down.

The Sabot thing was Just something I noticed and made me a bit happy is all