OK, the following is, in my opinion, the best way to use a minefield as part of a wedding cake defense.

First, I regard the minefield as a comparatively low priority in setting up the defense. First priority is the base itself. Second would be the ships (including PFs for a later scenario) necessary to support the middle and outer webs. Only after that would I start looking at things like fighters and mines, which can cause damage to the enemy but do not, in and of themselves, help to maintain the web.

When setting up the minefield, my primary consideration is how to set up the minefield so as to maximize survivablity of the ships supporting the web. This is best done with a "close-in" minefield. I will usually set up the minefield at ranges 3-7 from the base; captor mines (always phaser-2 mines, never disruptors) at ranges 3 (on the middle web) and 4 (between middle and outer web), nothing at range-5, explosive mines just outside the outer web at ranges 6 and 7. This is a "default", not an ironclad rule. I will sometimes vary the setup to surprise an opponent who is sexpecting this. But always the intent is to maximize the difficulty the attacker will face in transferring ships (not yet trapped in the web) from moving from one side of the wedding cake to the other.

More details tomorrow or Tuesday...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, August 20, 2025 - 06:08 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

More details tomorrow or Tuesday...

---

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, August 24, 2025 - 11:52 am: Edit

"The mines are their to improve the odds for ship survival." Alan, you're beginning to see the purpose of mines. They are not meant to replace ships or are minefields meant to be impenetrable by themselves.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 24, 2025 - 06:04 pm: Edit

John,

I've enjoyed this discussion, but... I'm beginning to see the purpose of mines? You can't concede the possibility I might have seen the purpose of mines for a while now, but assess their relative value differently than you do?

At the risk of sounding arrogant, I posted a description of a tactic for the attacking force to use a buzz saw's own strands as an aid in clearing mines from the passage between the strands. (See my 3:02 AM post from 16 July on this page.) Perhaps you think this tactic will not be effective. Fair enough, though I don't recall anyone posting a detailed refutation. But I suggest it at least shows I am not unfamiliar with web / mine interactions and tactics.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, August 24, 2025 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Allan the mine problem in a buzzsaw. Is that You set the mines at 0-radius. (detonate only when entering their hex) Thus moving next to the mine in the web. Will not set a mine off in the channel.

reread Your post. Still is a pain to remove mines. Should work to clear mines.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, August 24, 2025 - 07:46 pm: Edit

I set up the original Assault on the hold fast. (SH6.0) with a buzzsaw instead of the wedding cake. This scenario has no mine field.

Powering the web: Degradation 30 per web. Replaced by 20 per web. 40 power needed per turn to keep both strands at full strength. The BS has 22 power. The PAM adds 6 more. 2 from hanger MOD? so 30 power. Life support and fire control. Reloading phaser-IVs. So, 20 per turn from base. 5 power from each ship.

The Klingons have 4 cruisers. a F5V with Z1s. Dromes are worthless unless at point blank launch. You could slam the small ships and fighters into the web to attack anything on the other side. sacrificing them. Can enough ships get thru the channel. Only need 15 moves to get range 2 and blow the base.

I see the Tholians launching every single shuttle and fighters. (11 shuttles 6 fighters) You can mangle a ship maybe 2 in one turn. The rest will be in range 2 in one turn. The base does not have the power to use EW if powering the webs.

The Klingon will lose ships. The base will Die. With a wedding cake You cannot get to the base without dropping webs.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 24, 2025 - 07:51 pm: Edit

Vandar,

The mine's detection range doesn't affect the range at which the ship will detect the mine when actively scanning, so long as the mine is an automatic. The range at which the ship detects the mine is defined in (M7.32) RANGE and is independent of the mine's detection range, which determines when the mine will trigger. So the attacking force will still discover locations of automatic mines during what I referred to in my previously cited post as the "Mapping the Minefield" stage. That's true even if the mine has detection range set to zero.

So... there's an automatic explosive mine in the channel between the buzz saw strands. The Klingon knows where it is even though he hasn't entered the mine's hex. He moves a ship into a hex of the strand, adjacent to the mine he intends to sweep. If the mine had a detection range of one, it might detonate as the ship moves into that hex, depending on the ship's speed. But the web would protect the ship in this case. But you have set the mine's detection range to zero. So the ship grabs the mine with a tractor and fires a phaser at it. If the ship scores enough damage, it "sweeps" the mine. If it fails to score enough damage, the mine detonates and the web protects the Klingon from that explosion. All you've really accomplished by setting the detonation range to zero is forcing the Klingon to committ a tractor and phaser, whereas with a detection range of one, it might detonate on its own. But in either case, the Klingon can kill the mine without any risk from that specific mine.

You admonish me to reread my post. But I still don't see where my post is in error. If you think I have made an error, could you be more specific as to what is wrong?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Sunday, August 24, 2025 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Regarding your 7:46 PM post, which I didn't see until I had already posted my 7:51 comment, I think it's a mistake to try to use that scenario to test wedding cake versus buzz saw. WHY would the Tholians ever set up a buzz saw without a minefield? It's not a fair test. As you know, I don't think buzz saws are as good a defense as wedding cakes. But to test that, you've got to give the buzz saw a minefield. the wedding cake might or might not have a minefield. Just using the same forces (to include minefields) with both web configurations biases the test. If I were to conduct, say a 750 BPV (counting only "forces", not the cost of the webs themselves) comparison, I would not buy the same things for a wedding cake as I would for a buzz saw. Each web configuration should be set up with forces appropriate to that configuration.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 25, 2025 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Not that anyone asked... but here's my "rule of thumb" for when I start considering whether to buy a minefield for a wedding cake defense.

If possible (which depends on scenario year and BPV level) I want to be able to lose two PCs and still maintain the web. Once I reach that level, if I still have points to spend, I will think about buying a minefield or fighters rather than buying more ships.

So for a wedding cake assault pre-Y160, I am unlikely to have a minefield unless the BPV level is high. It takes 48 power to maintain the outer two webs and the Tholians don't have a lot of powerful ships. Maintaining the middle and outer rings with just PCs would require four of them. So to meet the "lose two and still be able to maintain the web" criterion, I would need six. If I had points left over after paying for the base, the webs, and six PCs, I... might... buy a minefield. But even then it's not clear cut. I might buy a seventh PC instead, or upgrade one of my PCs to a C. (Cost for a standard mine package; 50 points. Cost for an additional PC; 59 points. Cost to replace a PC with a C (not a CA, just a basic C); 61 points.) So these are all... kind of... in the same approximate price range.

In later scenarios a minefield becomes, in my opinion, a more plausible purchase. Web maintenance cost decreases and the Tholians have more "high power" options, including the Armed Web Tender (Y170), which is substantially better than the (Y150) basic web tender. The Tholians also eventually deploy PFs (two "W" types per standard flotilla) and PCXs start replacing PCs. But in that time frame, the Klingons (or whoever) also have X-ships, which have inherent minesweeping capabilities. So the value of a defensive minefield is reduced if the assaulting force is (or includes) an X-tech squadron.

I guess my bottom line is: A minefield can be useful for defending a wedding cake. But if in doubt, buy another ship instead.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 25, 2025 - 04:01 pm: Edit

I forgot to add that one situation which I think very much does call for a minefield, would be a (non-historical) Hydran assault on a Tholian base.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, August 25, 2025 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Allan I said I reread Your post. Yes, your thinking on clearing the mines from the channel is sound.

As for the Buzzsaw vs wedding cake by SH6.0. No it is not a good comparison. As you would not use a Buzzsaw without a minefield.

In the case of a minefield. The Klingons would gain a minesweeper. The problem then becomes can the Klingon clear the mines before the reinforcements arrive. How many ships will the Klingons lose, or have crippled. A well-played aggressive Tholian defense could be devastating.

The downside is the Klingons do not need to get stuck in the web at all. that would mean a lot more mines to clear. If you stick in the web at range 2 there is a lot less hexes to clear of mines. 15 hexes worth.

The Tholian player would likely take a web tender. Other ships. The klingon player would I am sure not take the E4s. I would take a Mauler. I just chose a prebuilt force to start with.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 25, 2025 - 11:06 pm: Edit

Ahh...

When I read that, I didn't realize you were saying you had reread my post. I thought you meant I should reread my own post, implying I had made a mistake somewhere. But you didn't say where the mistake was.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Monday, August 25, 2025 - 11:29 pm: Edit

I should also add, as a point in favor of minefields, that if the Tholians (either buzz saw or wedding cake) are caught at a low weapon status, the threat of a minefield might slow the attackers down and give the Tholians more turns to power up the webs. Alternately, the attackers might decide they have to bull through the field without taking the time to map it, to reach the base before the webs are strong enough to physically stop them. The attackers would take significant damage before engaging the base itself.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, September 25, 2025 - 11:26 am: Edit

Sorry all for my being AWOL from this discussion. My time constraint was exacerbated by a dog bite on my left hand, which was itself made worse by the resulting infection. That made the time constraint worse by my not being able to do things well one handed.

I'm better, now, with yet another trophy (scar) to show people.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, September 29, 2025 - 09:20 am: Edit

Gregory, a BS is too small to support a buzzsaw, unless you include a large web tender or such so the BS can use all of its P-4s every turn. Basically, the core element(s) will take care of maintaining the web strands while the base uses its P-4s to punish the attackers. Also, the mines are there not to stop but rather to slow down the attacker's ships so the core elements and accompanying mobile units can get as many shots in as possible before the attacking fleet can complete navigating a channel. This allows the mobile units to have the power available to move, fire, reinforce shields, and have negative tractor energy without the handicap of also powering up the web strands.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, September 29, 2025 - 09:23 am: Edit

Alan, we had a miscommunication earlier when I asked about your chosen defensive fleet. I wasn't asking about your favorite ships, but rather your chosen collection of ships available. To move the discussion along, I'm going to choose, as a starting position, the starting Tholian line-up from (SH6.0), a CA and 3 PCs. You may change this if you wish, and I'll adjust. I'll add a WT, and 2 mine packages with extra points for command triggers. Both add-ons are useful for wedding cakes as well, so you too may use them. The idea is to eliminate as many variables from the Wedding Cake/Buzzsaw discussion as possible so we can focus on the merits of the web patterns.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Monday, September 29, 2025 - 10:08 am: Edit

John: could not the BS be fitted out with three power augmentation modules?

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, September 29, 2025 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Jess R1.1B3 no more than 2 power modules can be equipped on a SB or one on a BS or BATS, but 1 heavy PM is as good as 3 regular.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 11:36 am: Edit

John;

The thing is, using the exact same forces for both a wedding cake defense and a buzzsaw defense doesn't really give a true picture of the relative merits because the optimum force mix will differ between the two web types. You want to start with a CA and three PC, then add two mine packages and a web tender. I think that's reasonable for a buzzsaw under the circumstances but it is not what I would choose to augment the existing wedding cake defense. Instead, I would add only one mine package and a fourth PC, forgoing the web tender entirely. Since two mine packages plus a WT cost more than one mine package plus a PC, I might make up the difference (if allowed by scenario rules) by buying additional command detonators for my mines.


Eddie;

The HPM isn't really as good as 3 regular PAMs based on how much power it supplies. If memory serves; it has twice as many APR and 1¹/₂ times as many batteries. It is as expensive as three PAMs because it only takes up one "A" docking position.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 11:52 am: Edit

Actually it produces 15 points of power for 3 that produce 18, 9 batteries vs 18., but only takes up one position leaving the others for something else, plus as the rules say you can only have 1.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 11:55 am: Edit

I stand corrected. Instead of twice as many APR it has 2¹/₂ times as many.

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Alan, I gave you the ability to alter the ships. If you want a Neo-Tholian DN, a CAP, and 4 PCs, fine. Just add a WT and 2 mine packages with points for command controllers. My selection was a very early beginning bargaining position.

How's this? For the sake of agreement, we can cooperatively select the forces to be used. I'll choose a WT, 2 mine packages, and command controllers for all of the NSMs and captor mines. You may add or upgrade anything you want to that mix without subtracting or downgrading anything. If you want a jumbo web tender, great! If you want single mines purchased individually, great! What are you adding to the mix?

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 03:41 pm: Edit

John,

I kind of think we're going about this backwards. First of all, what year are we talking about? It makes a big difference in available units. Secondly, I suggest choosing a BPV level and buying resources, excluding the cost of the web (and asteroids, if used) based on the year chosen. Thirdly, are "units" purchased at combat BPV or economic BPV? Combat BPV is more relevant for a "stand-alone" scenario but economic BPV might be a more relevant measure from a strategic perspective.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Buy Your forces and list both economic and combat BPV. You may also want to decide on a force that You think is best to assault the wedding cake and/or the Buzzsaw. The attacking force could be set as Klingon but You never know Rom?

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Alan, for the year, pick one Y161 or later. That allows for the BATS and WT to maintain a buzzsaw and for the BATS to arm and fire its P-4s every turn.

For the rest of your suggestions, as long as both web patterns have the exact same forces that do not prejudice themselves against one pattern or another, I'm OK. The idea is to eliminate the variable of the forces used in the defense from being a factor of consideration. Also, if the forces are exactly the same, none of your other considerations matter. The differences will be in how they are used in each case.