| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, August 05, 2025 - 10:35 pm: Edit |
John,
When I think of "base defense" (for any empire, not just the Tholians), I think of the BATS as the "default setting". I note the following quote from (R1.2) BATTLE STATIONS (BATS):
So unless the conflict is occuring pre-Y160, the BATS will be the primary base an invader encounters. Eventually the invader may penetrate deely enough into friendly space to encounter other base types, whether base stations that have not (yet) been upgraded because they were in a nominally "more secure" area, or sector bases and star bases because the enemy is now engaging the empire's core areas. And there's the issue of trying to set up a new base on the border (perhaps to replace a destroyed BATS) or even in enemy space, if your empire is invading his. In that latter case the enemy will try to destroy the mobile base, if he has the resources to do so, before it can be upgraded. All these situations might occur, but I believe an assault on a BATS will be the most common case, at least post-Y160.
Quote:By Y160, all base stations on national borders had been replaced with the more powerful battle stations. BATS had been in operation much earlier; the first “starbases” were in fact battle stations. Virtually all borders are guarded by a network of battle stations.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 06:08 am: Edit |
Greg, also read (G10.118).
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 06:11 am: Edit |
Alan, thanks for that answer. I'm going to use it as much as possible, but not purely strictly, to remove different force make-up variables, so differences can be more focused on the differences of the web patterns.
| By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 04:44 pm: Edit |
The rule preventing what Greg is describing is specifically (G10.1185) which says corner and intermediate anchors cannot be moved. The type of anchor a given point is is defined by (G10.133) and is specifically defined by the orientation of the anchor and the involved web segment(s). In the case of a circular anchored web (which is six segments of linear web, not a globular web), there will be six corner anchor points. A ship could assume anchor status, but then (G10.1167) would apply, preventing it from moving except to lay, extend, or shorten the web, and (G10.1185) says that a corner anchor cannot be moved, so it would have to be at a stop to assume anchor status and could not move until it drops anchor status.
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 05:41 pm: Edit |
I think everyone is missing the point. The asteroid is not moving. That anchor point stays for the other web segment. The ship is only taking over the one. end of a segment. Not both segments. Then moves to shorten the web. I never thought about this, but it could shorten the web three hexes. Leaving an opening for ships to pass thru. Then reverse and re-anchor the web to the asteroid.
I think maybe SPP can reply to this?
| By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 06:00 pm: Edit |
The type of anchor point isn’t defined by what you *want* to do, but what the actual, current configuration on the map is. (G10.1333) Says “Corner anchors are units in web hexes which are the junction of two separate web segments, each of which is legal under (G10.115) but the combination of which is not legal in itself.” A ship which assumes anchor status in such a hex does so as a corner anchor, by definition. As a corner anchor, it cannot be moved (G10.1185) and as a self-mobile unit is thus unable to move (G10.1167).
Only an end anchor can move, and a ship assuming anchor status at a corner does not meet the definition of an end-point anchor: (G10.1331) “End anchors are in the last hex of web on that end of a line of web.”
| By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 06:36 pm: Edit |
See also: (G10.222) which says any two adjacent web hexes are considered connected and (G10.1186). In short, once a hex becomes a corner hex in a linear web, any anchors in it are corner anchors, and the only way to change that status is via (G10.1186): a corner anchor in the middle of a multi-segment web would have to drop/lose anchor status, causing the segments to either side of it to collapse under (G10.117), at which point the intermediate or corner anchors at the other end of the collapsed segments would become end anchor points.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 06, 2025 - 10:17 pm: Edit |
OK, ships to support a wedding cake defense:
I generally assume 4 ships, at least 3 of which are PCs, and one that may be something larger. For an S8-type "Patrol Scenario", this will depend on the BPV limit for the scenario. In a campaign, some bases will be more important than others and these will be more likely to have more or larger ships.
For the 3 PCs, my default assumption for the "late war" time period under discussion is that one will be a PCX. While X-cruisers might show up as reinforcements if patrolling in the area when the BATS was attacked, I don't (as I previously mentioned) see them as being specifically assigned a dedicated base defense role. But an upgraded base defense ship is exactly the mission of the PCX. A high priority base might have more PCXs but for our hypothetical "standard" assault, one out of three seems plausible for the period.
What about a larger ship? The obvious choice would be the CPA; the Tholian CA with all four disruptors replaced with phaser-1s. This gives a total of 10 phaser-1s along with the excellent Tholian cruiser shields and 31+3 power (generated + reserve) on a 2/3 MC hull. It's an excellent and cost effective base defense ship. The status is RPL. The Tholians didn't build a lot of them but they did build more than one. So having a CPA as part of the base defense doesn't seem far fetched.
Another, somewhat cheaper, possibility for the "larger" ship would be the TK5. This is a captured F5 rear hull with the boom replaced by the front part of a PC hull. Compared to a standard Tholian DD, it generates the same power (though it does have one more battery) and is less maneuverable. Its shields are a lot weaker than those of a Tholian DD, but it does have a very large (for a destroyer) phaser battery of seven phaser-1s. Under "Brothers of the Anarchist" rules, foreign ships captured by the Tholians can have web generators installed and have phasers tuned to fire through web. But the ships themselves cannot be given the Tholian "web pass" capability. The TK5 is the sole exception. It can pass through web because part of the hull is Tholian-built. The TK5's inferior maneuverability and shields (by Tholian DD standards) don't matter as much in a web defense scenario, and that large phaser battery would be very useful. If I were Tholian Grand-High-Poobah-Big-Cheese-of-the-Fleet, I think I would designate the TK5 as a base defense ship and assign it to some border BATS.
And if you've still got BPV left over? There are several auxiliaries that could usefully support a Tholian defense. Auxiliaries could be used to support any empire's static defenses. But with their weak shields and slower speed (compared to real warships), they are vulnerable to getting blasted early in any base assault... except against a Tholian base, where they are protected by web. Three obvious auxiliaries to assist in wedding cake defense would be an Auxiliary PFT, Auxiliary Heavy Fighter Carrier, or Auxilliary Scout. The Aux PFT would provide the most defense capability, especially if its PFs were an Arachnid-P flotilla, like the base's. But it's also the most expensive option. Consider instead the SAH (Small Auxiliary Heavy Fighter Carrier) with a squadron of 6 Spider-VS Fast Heavy Superiority Fighters. The Spider-VS has 3 phaser-2s and 2 phaser-3s; 18 and 12 for the squadron as a whole. While not as good as an Arachnid-P flotilla (20 phaser-1s, and the ability to reinforce web), that Spider-VS squadron is a lot cheaper and still brings significant phaser firepower to the fight.
And what about web tenders? For a wedding cake, I'm not really sold on web tenders being worth their cost, except against the Seltorians. Still, they can be useful for quickly raising the middle ring (resulting in a two-tier rather than three-tier wedding cake) if the base is caught at a low weapon status. But I did want to mention that here is another example (like the hanger module verus power augmentation module mentioned in my previous post), where I think the optimum type of tender differs depending on whether you want to use a wedding cake or a buzz saw.
If I did choose to conduct a buzz saw defense, I would want one of the big freighter-based tenders. And I would place it in the base's hex. While the base might be able to handle the power load for raising and maintaining the web, depending on type of base and year of the scenario, it's still a heavy load. Adding a web tender costs more but frees up a lot of the base's power for EW and the phaser-IVs.
But for a wedding cake, I would want either an "Armed Web Tender" or one of the "Web Charger" police destroyers. These generate less total power than the "Large Web Tender" or "Heavy Web Tender" or "Jumbo Web Tender" but they are faster and more maneuverable, better suited for the tactic of hiding behind the middle ring, running out adjacent to the outer ring to place reinforcing energy in it, and then ducking back behind the middle ring before an attacker can enter the ring and get a shot at them. So I think the "Large", "Heavy", or "Jumbo" is better for the buzz saw because of total power available. But the the "Armed" or either version of the "Web Charger Destroyer" is better for a wedding cake because of speed and maneuverability.
I think that will be all for now. I expect to make one more post about this covering minefields (I never said I would never use minefiels, only that I would use a lot fewer of them) and some "dirty tricks" the Tholians might use.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, August 07, 2025 - 11:56 am: Edit |
Alan, if you included a real carrier in the defensive forces, not an aux-carrier, would you also claim to have the Spider-IIPs, or would you say that the carrier is usually an offensive unit having disruptor armed fighters?
As someone who also plays F&E, I would hesitate to have a PCX as a defensive unit for a BATS, but could see it as part of a fast mobile response force.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Thursday, August 07, 2025 - 12:59 pm: Edit |
John, a couple of comments:
Only one Tholian carrier is permitted to use Spider-IIPs and that, oddly enough, is the Police Carrier. Bases can have half their fighters be Spider-IIPs, but most standard carriers are not allowed to use them at all. In any case, six Spider-VS have more phaser firepower than even a full squadron (if that were legal) of 12 Spider-IIPs would have.
Note the following quote from (R7.204) ADVANCED PATROL CORVETTE (PCX)
Some PCXs might be "drafted" into mobile fleets if the Tholians didn't have adequate numbers of DDXs. But base defense is really its intended mission.
Quote:Most were used to defend bases against enemy X-ships due to their ability to fight behind webs.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, August 07, 2025 - 01:58 pm: Edit |
Alan, that is a weakness I have to deal with since the fire destroyed my entire SFU collection. I cannot look everything up.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, August 08, 2025 - 07:32 am: Edit |
Alan, also I didn't say I would object to PCXs being used for base defense, I said "I" would hesitate to have one on defensive duty.
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, August 09, 2025 - 06:44 pm: Edit |
Thinking about Buzzsaw vs Wedding cake.
Wedding cake 30-hex 18-hex 6-hex globes. y175 15,9,3 to power to web to stop degradation. 27 total.
Buzzsaw 2 30-hex strands 15 each or 30 total.
3 30 hex strands 15 each or 45 total.
The 2 strand and wedding cake are very close.
The 3 strand is 18 points higher.
If earlier in year would be even higher.
Now if my math is incorrect would it be 7.5 for 15 hexes? 1/2 and then doubled?
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, August 09, 2025 - 06:50 pm: Edit |
I want to know how to get the aggerate strength of the web. Like what is it after y175 for a 35-strength web.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, August 10, 2025 - 01:14 am: Edit |
Greg, (G10.3) covers web strength.
Also, even though a Buzzsaw can have either 2 or 3 strands, the 2 strand one is better. It costs less to power up and maintain, it concentrates the mines into only 2 channels instead of 3, and requires fewer asteroid anchors.
When you talk about the aggregate strength of a web, a 35-strength has an aggregate strength of 35. Read (G10.3). It'll become clear. If not, then ask again.
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, August 10, 2025 - 03:50 pm: Edit |
I have read and reread G10.3
a 10-hex web needs 350 pts of power (-10 +10 to stop degradation) Making it max strength of 35.
In y175 and latter.
a 10-hex web needs 175 pts of power. (-5 +5 to stop degradation) making a max strength of 35.
Or is it still 350 pts of power (350 / 10 = 35 strength web) just costs 175 to get
to that strength.
In that case I would be doubling the energy added to the web each turn. (Adding 8 pts of power is 16-power)
When firing a web breaker at a web. The damage is taken off of the aggregate strength of the web. The damage reduces the aggregate strength of the web.
copy paste. (A web six hexes long with a strength of twenty has 120 net aggregate strength points.)
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, August 10, 2025 - 10:19 pm: Edit |
OK, I got this backwards. The aggregate strength is a measure of the cumulative strength of all of the web hexes in a web plus any extra strength units that are in the fractions. The maximum is 35 ASP per hex, so a 10 hex web has a maximum ASP of 350. That same 10 hex web with an ASP of 126 has an aggregate strength of 126, but a web strength of 12.
A correction to the copy paste would be, "A web six hexes long with a strength of twenty has a minimum of 120 net aggregate strength points, but fewer than 126 aggregate strength points."
"(YG10.0) THOLIAN WEB
(YG10.41) During the Early Years, webs deteriorate by two energy points for each hex of web at the end of each turn. This was improved to the standard rate of one point per hex per turn in Y121." This means that the Aggregate Strength of a web is one half the value of the energy that is retained after deterioration.
From Y121 until Y160 the aggregate strength is the same as the amount of energy currently in the web.
From Y161 until Y174 The aggregate strength is 1.5 times the amount of energy currently stored in the web.
From Y175+, the aggregate strength is twice the amount of energy currently stored in the web.
Does it make sense to you now?
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, August 10, 2025 - 11:17 pm: Edit |
Greg, that last question wasn't meant sarcastically.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 10, 2025 - 11:53 pm: Edit |
I was going to talk about minefields in wedding cake defense but I think I'll save that for a later post. Instead, I wanted to discuss some exceptions to my previusly described default defense assumptions.
Battle Stations become pretty universal as border bases by Y160. But what about prior to Y160? In that case, I might well choose a Base Station, as being more realistic. And because web reinforcement costs a lot more power pre-Y160, and I don't have a lot of ships that generate high power levels, I am likely to go with a two tier wedding cake. The one exception is if the scenario is set pre-Y160 but post-Y150. The "basic" web tender is available Y150. So post-Y150 but pre Y160, I might decide to use a three tier wedding cake, depending on BPV.
The Spider-II (and -IIP) and Spider-III fighters are available Y172. And the firepower of the Spider-I is only a single phaser-3. It's basically a sligtly faster and more durable... admin shuttle... with web spinner capabiliy (not mush use for a base defense scenario with webs already in place). Prior to Y172, I would forgo fighters. Post-Y165, I might take one or more PAMs instead. This isn't to help with web maintenance (since the base can only maintain the 6-hex inner ring) but to give me more power to use both the phaser-IVs and EW. With a Base Station (no modules), you don't really have the power to use your phasers to full capability and use the special senors to support your ships. It's pretty much one or the other. The BATS is better from a power standpoint but also has four special sensors, rather than just two. So it can also use the extra power.
Almost all Archeo-Tholian ships can carry Tholian packs. But for most ships, the packs are just inert cargo. While the CW-based LTT (not available until Y179) can use all packs, the Repair Corvette, Cargo Patrol Corvette, and FCR can all use the Phaser Pack. This increases their phaser-1 firepower from 4 to 8 (5 to 9 for the LTT). I do not think I would I would buy one of these ships, plus phaser pack, for a S8 scenario. But in a strategic campaign, I would store a Phaser Pack at every Tholian base, in case an LTT, CPC, FCR, or PR happened to be at the base when an incoming enemy attack was detected. The cost is minor compared to the cost of the base and defending ships, and might enable a base to increase its defensive firepower by the equivalent of an additional patrol cruiser.
Note that of those four ships, only the LTT has web generators. A CPC, FCR, or PR with phaser pack has good firepower but can not help maintain the webs.
Module R4T finally added Tholian non-X fast ships, specifically the CA-based CAF and DD-based DDF. (There are also a number of "conjectural" Tholian fast ships, including some Neo-Tholian designs.) Both the "real" CAF and DDF are superior to the standard CA and DD for wedding cake defense, having more power and two more phaser-1s, at the expense two disruptors. As with the above-mentioned LTT, CPC, PR, or FCR with phaser pack, I would generally not use either the CAF or DDF as part of ny default defense. They are excellent in the role but the Tholians only built one of each so they would probably not be at the specific base when it was attacked. Never the less, it could happen and they are quite effective in the role.
And last (for this post), my least favorite Tholian cruisers, the CAN and its photon cousin CPN. The CAN is an "upgrade" to the CW but actually, in my opinion, is a bit worse. The CAN is a CW with a "pack" containing two disruptors, four APR, two batteries, and two hull. The MC is increased to 1. It does not suffer from shock.
On the face of it, an MC1 cruiser with six heavy weapons and no shock sounds... really good. The problem is that it still has the CW engines, giving it a maximum speed of 25. Since its YIS is Y180, it will have to deal with fast drones, plasma sabot, megafighters, PFs... etc. A maximum speed of 25 is a real weakness in that scenario.
Personally, I would never choose a CAN if I were designing my own forces, either for a scenario or a campaign. But hypothetically, If I were playing a late-war campaign and my deignated starting forces included one or more CANs, what do I do with them? I think I would designate them as base defense ships and assign them to various border stations. They're not particularly great in that role (slightly better than a vanilla CW but clearly inferior to a CPA or (if one happened to be there) CAF). But their primary weakness, their low speed, isn't a big deal in a web defense scenario.
Sigh... If only the Tholians had built a version with all phaser-1s, not just in the "belly pack" but the main hull a well. Instead of six disruptors and five phaser-1s for primary armament, it would mount 11 phaser-1s. That would be a web defender with teeth.
OK, next post - minefields for a wedding cake.
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, August 11, 2025 - 04:47 pm: Edit |
John
Thank You and worded that way it makes sense to me.
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Saturday, August 16, 2025 - 06:29 pm: Edit |
It has gotten cold in here.
I set up a wedding cake and a 2 band buzzsaw. How to defend how to attack.
I have attacked and defended a wedding cake. In all cases no minefield. Just some T-bombs dropped by ships. Those days we all played with no hidden mines.
A mine field for a wedding cake would just slowdown the attacker. Giving the Phaser-IVs more time to weaken the attacker and allow the relief force to time to get there. The attacker would eventually take it down pull back and repair the damaged shields. Then continue the attack.
The buzzsaw without a mine field all it is going to do is force the attacker to go down one are the other of the channels to kill the base.
With a mine field it is a horrifying process. With 100 points of mines two packages. One for each arm.
A “Standard Minefield” (used in many scenarios) consists of:
• 15 large explosive
• 40 small explosive
• 3 large captor
• 7 small captor
• 4 sensor
Around a base. read M6.331 for deployment.
You could Easly leave an open path or paths thru the minefield crossing over web hexes for ship movement. It would be a very dense and tight mine field. even after discovering where the mines are sweeping them would be a hazard that close to the Phaser-IVs.
A ship could stick into the web and sweep mines in the corridor between web strings. The inability to stop the web from being reinforced means a 35-point web and 36 power to pull the other ship out. All Under the fire power of Tholian phasers.
The good thing is You can move it sweep a few mines then pull out and do repairs. The base cannot replace the mines during the siege.
I was also thinking about Seltorians. The web breaker would be very effective at weakening the webs. Dropping it out right no. But that would be a whole new post
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Saturday, August 16, 2025 - 07:11 pm: Edit |
Vandar,
Your post reminded me that I was going to say something about minefields in a wedding cake defense. I don't know if I will get to that today, but maybe tomorrow. For now I will only state that I was somewhat bemused by your comment:
You mentioned repairing damaged shields but said nothing about... reassembling... ships that have recently undergone "rapid disassembly" and are now doing convincing imitations of rapidly expanding clouds of superheated gas. Because my contention is that, with a properly set up Tholian defense, the attacker (Andromedans excepted) will have multiple ships destroyed while breeching the minefield. I'll try to discuss that in more detail tomorrow.
Quote:A mine field for a wedding cake would just slowdown the attacker. Giving the Phaser-IVs more time to weaken the attacker and allow the relief force to time to get there. The attacker would eventually take it down pull back and repair the damaged shields. Then continue the attack.
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Saturday, August 16, 2025 - 11:04 pm: Edit |
Vandar, don't forget the mobile forces defending the base. There will likely be a lot more P-1s that are closer to the attacker that have a smaller web penalty when firing at the attackers outside of the web. They will have no web penalty firing from range 2 when the attacker traverses a channel. And think of all of those shuttles with their P-3s. Each P-3 averages 3 damage points at range 2, and every ship as well as the base has one or more. Then there are the fighters.
One more thing. Only the sensor, captor, and command controlled mines cannot be replaced during a scenario. It is expensive, but a mine laying freighter can have its cargo boxes filled with NSMs and T-bombs. It can transfer the T-bombs to other ships, or the base which then transfers them to ships. The freighter itself will have to drop the NSMs.
Alan is right, however. It's going to be a bad day for an attacker.
| By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 04:32 pm: Edit |
Allen if a base has the firepower to disassemble a ship each turn? Then you do not attack that base. Even with triple the BPV.
As for ships behind webs and firing at the attacker. With out any way to fire back. Yeah, that sucks. Sticking into the web to fire back sucks. One of the good things about the buzzsaw. You cannot stop ships from reinforcing it.
| By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 17, 2025 - 09:47 pm: Edit |
Vandar;
Most bases can destroy a ship in a single turn, depending on ship size and how close the ships have to approach to the base. Against the Tholians, the web forces the attacker to get close.
Consider a Klingon assault on a Fed BATS. The BATS has six phaser-IVs and two photon torpedoes as long range direct fire weapons. If the Klingons had to approach to range-8, the Fed base would have a reasonable chance of obliterating a small ship such as an F5 in one turn, especially if the photon torpedoes are armed. At range-5, that Fed BATS is looking at... maybe... disintegrating a cruiser (25% chance that both overloaded photons hit, on top of approximately 92 damage from the phasers). But if a Klingon fleet sails in to range-15 and tries to wear down the BATS with medium range disruptor fire, even that F5 can take several turns worth of fire before it is in actual danger of destruction.
I regret I have not yet posted my thoughts on how to set up a minefield for base defense. I wasn't feeling well this afternoon and lay down for what was intended to be a brief nap. I awoke just a few minutes ago. I may post a brief start tonight, with expansion tomorrow or Tuesday.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |